Skip to main content

Full text of "The Meaning Of Paul For To Day"

See other formats

1 27 690 











** THESE that have turned the world upside down are come 
hither also." So the people of ancient Saionica judged 
two men who came proclaiming the Christian Way to a 
pagan society. By happy fortune, one of the two revo- 
lutionaries has survived in his writings, and we are in a 
position to learn at first-hand how Paul of Tarsus, artisan, 
scholar, traveller, leader of men, carried out into that 
imperial world die gospel that had transformed his own 
life, interpreting it in daring and vivid terms to the mind 
of his time. A gospel so deeply personal and so widely 
human can survive the intellectual vicissitudes of centuries, 
and bear re-interpretation for a new age without losing its 
vital force. 

In this little book I have made some attempt to suggest 
the place of Paul in the history of religion ; but I have 
been more particularly concerned to bring out what I 
conceive to be the permanent significance of the apostle's 
thought, in modern terms, and in relation to the general 
interests and problems which occupy the mind of our 
generation. I find in Paul a religious philosophy of life 
orientated throughout to the idea of a society or common- 
wealth of God. Such a philosophy finds ready contact 
with the dominant concerns of our own day, 

The basis of this study is the Pauline epistles. There 
is now a very general agreement among students that in 
the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, in both epistles to 
the Corinthians, and in those to the Galatians, Romans, 


Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Philippians, we possess 
authentic letters from the hand of the great missionary 
himself. The order in which they are here named is 
probably the order of their composition. The remaining 
five epistles (for no one now supposes that Paul wrote 
** Hebrews ") are still in dispute. Without entering into 
the dispute here, I may state my belief that the balance 
of probability is on the side of the genuineness of II Thes- 
salonians and of Ephesians. The latter, however, was 
probably not written to Ephesus, or at least not exclusively 
to Ephesus. It may have been some kind of circular 
letter, written, as we must suppose, almost simultaneously 
with Colossians. Even if it could be shown not to be 
from the hand of Paul, it would still remain an important 
statement of the Pauline philosophy of life in its most 
developed form. Upon these ten letters I have based my 
exposition. On the other hand, I cannot persuade myself 
that the Epistles to Timothy and Titus are, at any rate 
in their present form, authentic letters of Paul, though 
they no foubt contain Pauline material I have not used 
them as sources for Paul's thought. The Acts of the 
Apostles., which contain a valuable outline of the Apostle's 
missionary journeys from the pen of one of his companions, 
I nave treated as only a secondary authority where his 
'nner life and thought are concerned. 

I have given quotations from the epistles in an English 
form which represents my own attempt to reproduce, 
sometimes by way of paraphrase rather than literal trans- 
lation, the precise meaning of the original. They may be 
compared with any other version that may be accessible. 
For those who do not read Greek a comparison of a number 
of different versions is perhaps the next best thing. 

I may perhaps be permitted a word upon one aspect 
of the subject which is at the moment a matter of con- 
troversy. The view here taken of the religion from which 


Paul reacted is very different from the picture of first- 
century Pharisaism which has recently been set befox'e 
us by Dr. Abrahams and Dr. C. G. Montefiore. I would 
observe that Paul himself leaves us in no doubt as to the 
general effect of the type of Judaism he once professed j 
and whether or not this type of Judaism was the orthodox 
Pharisaism of the time, matters little for our present pur- 
pose. It is a phase of religion which recurs in many periods, 
and not only within Judaism. But Paul unequivocally 
describes himself in his pre-Christian days as a Pharisee. 
Moreover, we have in the gospels an independent descrip- 
tion of Pharisaic religion from a different point of view ; 
and it appears to me that on this matter the gospels and 
the Pauline epistles explain and corroborate one another. 
The Jewish scholars I have mentioned have selected from 
the corpus of Rabbinic writings a set of sayings which give 
a very attractive picture of Judaism under the Law, and 
their method of selection seems more critical and dis- 
criminating than that pursued by scholars of a former 
generation Weber, Schiirer, Edersheim who out of the 
same corpus produced a far less attractive picture. In 
any case, however, the evidence for the first century seems 
to be extracted with difficulty and some uncertainty from 
a mass of material committed to writing not earlier than 
the close of the second century. The gospels and the 
Pauline epistles, on the other hand, are contemporary 
evidence that in the first century a very strict and exclusive 
kind of legal puritanism did overshadow the religious life 
of a group of pious Jews ; that this group was for the time 
being dominant ; and that this group, if not identical with 
the Pharisees, was at least included in that sect, and largely 
determined its main religious tendency. Both the gospels 
and the Pauline epistles give us hints of a more humane 
and spiritual tendency within Judaism and even within 
Pharisaism ; and this tendency may be represented by 


the Rabbinic teaching to which Dr. Abrahams and Dr 
Montefiore have introduced us. Paul, if Luke has reported 
him correctly, belonged to "the strictest sect" 

To acknowledge my indebtedness to all books and 
teachers without whose help this little book could never 
have come into existence would be an endless task ; nor 
is it part of my purpose to give a bibliography. But I 
cannot refrain from commending to others two books 
from which I learnt very much about Paul : Heinrich 
Weinel's S. Paul: the Man and his Work (E.T. pub. 
Williams & Norgate 1906), and Adolf Deissmann's S. Paul: 
a Study in Social and Religious History (E.T. pub. Hodder 
& Stoughton 1912). I could wish that any whom 
this book may lead to further study of the apostle would 
read those two books. But above all, let them read the 
letters themselves not lections from the letters, but each 
letter as a unit in itself -either in the original or in a good 
modern translation such as that of Professor Moffatt. 

I am grateful to my colleague Dr. Buchanan Gray, 
to the Rev. John R. Coates, and to the Editor of this series 
for suggestions and advice while the book was in proof. 



July 17, 1920. 



PREFACE . . . . 7 








VII. THE SON OF GOD . . . .84 


IX. EMANCIPATION . . . . 106 








EPISTLES . . . .169 

44 ... But the big courage is the cold-blooded kind, the kind 
that never lets go even when you're feeling empty inside, and 
your blood's thin, and there's no kind of fun or profit to be had, 
and the trouble's not over in an hour or two but lasts for months 
and years. One of the men here was speaking about that kind, 
and he called it ' Fortitude.' I reckon fortitude's the biggest 
thing a man can have just to go on enduring when there's no 
guts or heart left in you. Billy had it when he trekked solitary 
from Garungoze to the Limpopo with fever and a broken arm 
just to show the Portu gooses that he wouldn't be downed by 
them. But the head man at the job was the Apostle Paul ..." 

** Peter Pienaar " in John Buckayfs MR. STANDFAST. 

The Meaning of Paul for 


THE story of the Gospels is an unfinished drama. Its 
historic interest is pivoted upon the conflict between the new 
liberating message of the Kingdom and the religious system 
represented by the Pharisees. In the narrative of Mark 
we watch the forces gather for the inevitable clash. Chal- 
lenged on one issue after another with a challenge not 
forced upon a reluctant situation but growing out of the 
nature of irreconcilable ideals the supporters of the old 
order gradually rally for a battle royal on the whole front 
of man's religious destiny. More and more it becomes 
clear that no accommodation is possible. There is a clear 
issue : on the one hand the Way of the Nazarene, with His 
startling assertions and denials ; on the other hand all that 
the piety of the time prized as the essentials of a revealed 
religion. The plot thickens, until in the dim morning light 
of the fatal Passover the antagonists stand face to face a 
nation on one side, the rejected Prophet on the other. The 
clash comes, and when the earthquake and the eclipse are 
past, the Established Order remains supreme. The gospel 



of emancipation has been added to the limbo of shattered 
illusions, and Pharisaism is triumphant. 

That is the crisis of the movement. The situation 
holds all the elements of real tragedy : a conflict of passionate 
human interests in which ancient good, become uncouth, 
overcomes the better that might be, and the stirrings of the 
human spirit after freedom are baffled by historic necessity. 
But it is evident that the plot is not finished. The whole 
development has pointed forward, to this situation cer- 
tainly, but not to this as conclusion. And indeed the gospels 
themselves obscure the tragedy in a sudden blaze of super- 
natural light. In the intoxicating joy of Easter morning 
the defeat is forgotten, and the divine Victor holds the 
stage. But the faith of the Resurrection is so far a matter of 
personal religious experience : it is not, as yet, history. As 
a denouement of the tangled plot it is scarcely even relevant. 
It is the supreme appearance of the Deus ex machina. The 
risen Christ is Victor indeed over Death ; but He is not 
Victor over the Pharisees. For all the raptures of the 
disciples, the great system of Pharisaic Judaism stands, as 
imposing, as self-sufficient, as ever. The tragic conflict 
is not yet resolved. 

Various hands have essayed the construction of a con- 
vincing Last Act. For the " realist " school the illusion 
of the Resurrection is but the deepest note in a final and 
irredeemable catastrophe. The President of the Immortals 
has finished His sport with the Nazarene. This is, how- 
ever, to abandon the data of the plot ; for the drama is 
cast not for disaster but for j oy For the school of romantic 
melodrama there must be a vindication of poetic justice ; 
and the Risen Christ takes His sword of vengeance and sees 
His desire upon His enemies. It matters here little whether 
the mse en scene is a Michelangelesque Last Day, or 
whether^ the venue being removed to solid earth, Christ is 
shown triumphing over die ruins of Jerusalem in the fatal 


year of Titus's victory.* Such a denouement is a denial of 
the central motive of the drama. The character of the 
Hero must be consistent with itself ; and the triumph of 
a vengeful Messiah is not the triumph of the Victim of 
Calvary. It is therefore no resolution of the tragic 

For a convincing denouement the Hero of the drama 
the Speaker of the Sermon on the Mount, the Prisoner of 
the Sanhedrin, the Bearer of the curse of the Law on 
Golgotha, must emerge, He and no other, as the con- 
queror, the conqueror by His own weapons and by no other, 
of that unchanged Pharisaism, so noble in its stuff, so 
pernicious in the final issue of its spirit, which had by an 
inner necessity of its being destroyed Him. In His victory 
the Cross must have its indispensable part, and the 
Resurrection must be shown to be not only an imaginative 
truth of the supernal world, where the baffled spirit takes 
refuge from intractable facts, but an active force in real 
life. Then, and not till then, shall we rest satisfied that 
the whole dramatic situation has been adequately dealt with 
and the tragic conflict reconciled. 

This is the denouement which History has written. 
The beginning of it can be told in a few words : " A 
Hebrew of Hebrews, in regard to the Law a Pharisee . . . 
I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus ... I am crucified with 
Christ, and yet I am alive not I, but Christ is alive in 
me." 3 Was revenge ever more complete ? Imagine this 
man (as we may well imagine him, for he was there in spirit 
at least) among those fanatical Jews who would not enter 
Pilate's hall "lest they should be defiled," yet stood without 
clamouring for the death of the Carpenter- Prophet who had 
dared affront the majesty of their hoary Law. And then 

* Forsyth, Christian Ethic of War, p. 87 : " Did Christ not 
summon then, the legions it did not suit Him to ask for to avert 
the Cross ? " a Phil. Hi. 5-H, Gal ; ii. 19-20. 


see him yielding utterly to the spell of the Cross upon 
which he or his like had fastened the Rejected. That 
is real conquest. It is the method of the Christian 

Here we get the clue to the unity of the New Testament. 
The Epistles are often opposed to the Gospels as though 
they contained " rival philosophies." If in the story of the 
Prodigal Son we have the heart of Christ's message, where, 
it is asked, is this message to be found amid the maze of 
speculation about Law, Sin, and Sacrifice which fills the 
pages of the Epistles ? Those who ask that question have 
failed to notice that the real problem of that immortal tale 
is the churlish elder brother. " He was angry and would 
not go in " ; and in spite of the father's pleadings, there 
he is left when the tale ends. Good reason for this : when 
Jesus told the tale the elder brothers were fiercely refusing 
His invitations to renew fellowship with those despised 
prodigals whom Jesus ** came to seek and to save." The 
epistles of Paul show us the elder brother broken down by 
the Father's love and leaving home and its secure delights 
to go into far countries and seek out those brothers who still 
lingered among the swine and the husks. If the language 
in which he tells us how it came about is tortuous and difficult, 
we may find in it a sign of the contortions of the spirit which 
had to be straightened out before the elder brother could 
put away his pride and prejudice and learn his Father's 

In all this we are thinking of Paul not as an individual 
merely, but as the one mind through which we can read 
from the inside what Christ's victorious assault on Phari- 
saism meant. Paul's letters reflect his experience ; and 
his experience was an epitome of the revolution which Christ 
wrought in religion. There was in Jewish religion a rich 
spiritual treasure, gathered through centuries of a history 
as ?tiange as any this world can show. But the treasure 


was not available for mankind, and the process which 
denied it to the world made it useless or worse to its possessors. 
" You Pharisees," said Jesus, " have taken away the key of 
knowledge ; you have not entered in yourselves, and you hin- 
dered those who were trying to enter in." The task which 
He set Himself was not simply to teach new truth and leave 
it at that. He embraced the destiny of Messiahship. That 
meant a harder task. It meant gathering up the threads 
of the past and weaving them into the new design. He 
came, "not to destroy, but to fulfil" In particular 
it meant that He undertook the task of liberating the 
spiritual treasure of Israel's faith for humanity. Because 
He was faithful to that destiny He died on a Roman Across. 3 
In Paul and in the work of his mission we see the task 
being accomplished. In Paul the devout passion for con- 
duct which distinguished the Jewish religion is seen liberated, 
enlightened, made spiritual and personal, by what Paul 
found in Christ; and then impressed upon the life and 
thought of the wide world in terms which belong to that 
strangely composite state of mind where the mystical East 
met tne Roman West through the humanizing medium of 
the great Hellenic tradition. 

Because of this Paul is a great figure in the history of 
religion. Yet his thought has more than a merely historic 
interest. Religion is one of the determining factors in 
all history. Too often its organization becomes, as it had 
become in the rime of Christ, an obstacle to the free pro- 
gress of man. For this reason the reformer and the revolu- 
tionary are very ready to lose patience with religion and set 
it aside. Yet the dynamic of religion remains, for good or 
ill, the strongest of all human motives. Part of the 
work of Christ was that He redeemed religion itself for 
the saving; of men. It is this side of His work which 

3 On this matter see J. R. Coates, The Christ of Revolution, 
in this series. 



so powerfully affected Paul that he remains the classic 
exponent of the idea of freedom and universality in religion. 
While religion remains the problem, the peril, but also the 
one hope of human progress, his work has a contem- 
porary interest. 


IN the first century of our era Western civilization was 
coterminous with the Roman Empire. Augustus had set 
forward with some differences and with greater success the 
far-reaching policy of his brilliant uncle. He put an end 
to the evil political system, or want of system, which had 
made the Roman Republic in its later phases a menace to 
civilization. The constitution which he established worked 
at least in the direction of public order and peace. A 
tendency set in to make the provinces co-operative parts of a 
great commonwealth instead of the plunder of a narrow 
circle of aristocratic families. 

Throughout the eastern provinces of the Empire Rome 
was the inheritor, and in a great measure the upholder, of 
an earlier system. From the time of Alexander the Great 
the countries bordering the Levant had come strongly 
within the circle of Greek civilization. The Greek lan- 
guage was current in most of the towns, even if native 
languages subsisted alongside them, as they did more 
especially in the country districts. The towns which 
had been founded, or transformed, by Greek monarchs- 
in the period after Alexander possessed, and retained 
under Roman rule, a limited local autonomy which was 
the shadow of the proud independence of the old Greek 
city-state, though the encroachments of the central 
authority slowly sapped their vitality. In our period^ 


however, this disintegrating process was not far advanced ; 
and on the other hand the frequent elevation of these 
towns to full municipal rank, carrying with it the 
Roman citizenship for the municipal aristocracy, gave a 
very secure position to the city-state within the En-pire. 
In these municipal communities the old keen intellectual life 
of Greece, fertilized by its new association with Oriental 
thought, flourished exceedingly. Alexandria, Ephesus, 
Antioch, and many other cities, had their schools of 
philosophy ; but not only so : philosophy had come out of 
the schools, and was rapidly becoming a concern of the man 
an the street, who listened with at least that measure of 
interest which fashion decreed to the " preaching friars" of 
the Cynic or Stoic doctrines. His understanding of them 
might be exceedingly superficial, and he might listen only to 
find subjects for after-dinner talk ; but at least he was not 
hopelessly at sea when he heard a philosophic term used in 
conversation. There was a large reading public, and books 
of a sort were plentiful and fairly cheap. Not philosophy 
alone, however, but religion too ? was becoming a popular 
concern. Alongside the stately public rituals of the various 
cities were the more or less private and independent religious 
brotherhoods which tried to provide a religious atmosphere 
more fervent and moresatisfying to the feelings of the ordinary 
man than those antiquated and formal rites could supply. 

There was one very widelyspread religion which combined 
the splendour of antiquity, the tenacity of a national faith, 
and the direct personal appeal of a religion of heart and life 
the religion of the Jews. This strange people was already 
becoming cosmopolitan. Few towns of any size throughout 
the Eastern provinces of the Empire were without their 
Jewish colonies. In some of the greatest the Ghetto* was 
an element of extreme significance in the corporate life of 
the place* The Jews had already embarked on that career 
for which they seem so singularly endowed by nature the 


career of finance. 1 Their eminence in this walk of life, 
together with their fanatical nationalism and their queer 
religious customs, made them far from popular. Yet the 
attraction of Judaism was strongly felt, especially in those 
circles where men could not find satisfaction with the 
State religions. The Jewish communities, or synagogues 
civil and religious brotherhoods enjoying much liberty 
of self-government were almost everywhere a nucleus 
for a more or less loosely knit group of " God-fearers," 
to use the Jewish term, who adopted many of the beliefs 
and practices of their Hebrew neighbours without actually 
becoming Jews. 

The ancient city of Tarsus in Cilicia is a favourable 
example of the municipal city-state ; Oriental in the 
background of its life and traditions, markedly Greek 
in its culture, and enjoying a secure position in the general 
order of the Empire. It had its school of philosophy, in 
which a succession of able teachers had given a pre-eminence 
to the Stoic sect. Its commerce prospered. Doubtless 
the important Jewish colony was intimately associated 
with this side of the city's life. Among them was at least 
one family possessed of the Roman citizenship, which 
implies, probably, membership of the order from which 
the local magistrates were drawn, and at any rate some social 
standing in the town. It is with a son of this family that 
we have to do. 3 The boy had the old Hebrew name of 
Sha'ul, famous in history as the name of the first King of 
Israel, whose tribe, that of Benjamin, was also that of these 

1 Perhaps the earliest allusion to Jewish money-lenders occurs 
in a papyrus of the year 41 of our era. The papyrus is a letter 
to a man in money difficulties, and contains the salutary advice 
* Beware of the Jews ! ' See Milligan : Greek Papyri, No. 15. 

* Ac. xzii. 25-28, The fact that Paul learned a trade, that 
of tent-making, does not necessarily conflict with what is here 
'said of his family's social position. 


Tarsian Jews. That, however, was only his home-name. 
To his fellow-citizens outside the synagogue he was Paulus. 
He must, of course, have possessed a Roman family name 
and first name we may think of him as Gaius Julius 
Paulus, or Gnaeus Pompeius Paulus, if we wish to fit 
him into his natural environment in the city of his birth. 
He learned to speak and write Greek with ease. He 
could quote Greek poets, and use the popular philosophical 
language of the time easily and naturally. With all this, 
however, he was by no means a Greek. His family belonged 
to the Puritans of Judaism nationalist in outlook, strict in 
religious observance. They spoke Aramaic at home, even 
though they used Greek at market or in the City Council- 
chamber.3 The boy was, in fact, sent to Jerusalem, the 
national capital, in order th&t his education should be strong 
on the distinctively Jewish side. He made great strides 
in his studies, and was probably preparing for the career of 
a Rabbi, when events occurred which disturbed the tenor 
of his life.4 

A new sect had appeared within Judaism. It was com- 
posed of the followers of a Galilsean craftsman, who with- 
out any apparent authority had set up for a Rabbi, and had 
scandalized the religious leaders by his bold appeal to the 
common people and his intensely critical attitude to the 
Law and the Temple. He had fallen into their hands, 
and they had secured his condemnation at the hands 
of the Roman Governor on the charge of being a claimant 
to the throne of Judaea a preposterous charge which 
nevertheless seemed to have some foundation in his well- 
attested claim to be the " Messiah/' The execution had 
not fulfilled its purpose to any considerable extent ; for 

3 Tliis assumes that E/3pa7oc in Phil- iii. 5 has something 
of the same sliade of meaning as in Ac. vi. i. In any case Paul 
spoke Aramaic, Ac. zxii. 2, and Aramaic was the language of 
his inner life: cf. xxvi, 14. 4 Ac, xxii. 3, Gal. i. 14. 


the followers of the Galilaean asserted that he was still alive, 
and apparently got people to believe this extraordinary 
statement 5 for the sect was growing with alarming 
rapidity. The young Paul saw here a vocation which com- 
manded his ardent devotion. He would be the instrument 
of the God of his fathers in putting down this pestilent and 
blasphemous heresy. After some very effective work to 
this end in the city and its neighbourhood, he obtained a com- 
mission from the religious authorities to extend the good 
work. He set out for Damascus with instructions to the 
local synagogue there to accept his direction in rooting out 
the Galilaeans.5 

On the way something happened. Paul arrived at the 
city of Damascus in sorry plight nervously shaken and 
half blind. As he recovered, instead of carrying out his 
commission he commenced a vigorous campaign on behalf 
of the faith he had set out to destroy. 6 From this time on his 
whole life was given to the propagation of Christianity 
His activities were by no means always pleasing to the older 
Christians, and especially to their leaders, but after a time 
he succeeded in establishing some sort of a concordat with 
the principal men of the Christian community at Jerusalem, 
which left him a free hand in his mission to the populations 
of the Roman provinces outside Judaea, including the non- 
Jewish elements in those populations.? Indeed,as time went 
on, the non-Jewish elements in the Christian communities 
he founded greatly preponderated over the Jewish, and the 
type of Christianity which prevailed among them was of a 
broader, more cosmopolitan type than that of the original 
community. It was above all a religion of emancipation. 
" For liberty you were called," is the watchword of Paul's 
great controversy. ' This liberty rested upon a personal 

5 Ac. viii. 1-3, be. 1-2, Gal. i. 13, I Cor. zv. 9. 

6 Ac. ir. 3-30, zxii. 3-21, xrvi. 4-23, Gal. i. 15-17* 

7 Ac. iv. 1-35, Gal. ii. i-io. 


and inward relation to Christ, replacing allegiance to laws 
and traditional institutions. The person of Christ was thus 
not less, but possibly more, central to the new Christians 
than even to the first preachers of the faith 5 and Paul's 
mission was an assertion of the completeness and indepen- 
dence of the Christian faith. It meant that the new religion 
had broken through the narrow limits of a mere Jewish 
sect, and set out to claim the world. Paul, Roman citizen 
as he was, would seem to have conceived the idea a wild 
idea it may well have appeared of "the Empire for 
Christ.'* In pursuit of it he spent years in travelling 
up and down the Roman ways which had linked up 
the world of that age in so wonderful a fashion, and 
in navigating the Eastern Mediterranean in storm and 

It was an adventurous life he led and a perilous. Rob- 
bers still haunted, in spite of Rome, the inland regions of Asia 
Minor ; and the fleet which had swept the Levant of pirates 
could not control the Levantine storms, which at least four 
times brought the intrepid traveller to shipwreck, and once 
tossed him for twenty-four hours in open sea before rescue 
arrived. In addition there were the perils to which the 
propagator of unpopular doctrines exposes himself, even 
in an age so tolerant on the whole as the first century. It 
was no doubt something of a joke among Paul's friends that 
he had once outwitted his enemies by escaping from Damascus 
in a basket let down from a window, but it was no joke that 
he was three times scourged by local magistrates (in spite 
of his Roman citizenship), and no less than five times received 
the savage maximum penalty of " forty stripes save one " 
from the Jewish synagogue authorities. This penalty, it 
is said, was usually commuted or reduced on grounds of 
mere humanity, and the fact that Paul underwent it five 
times gives us a hint of the great physical strength which 
he must have possessed, in spite of his insignificant appear* 


ance and his recurrent attacks of a complaint which may 
have been malarial. 8 

Of his earlier preaching tours we have only the most 
meagre accounts. Later the record, partly in the form of 
a diary made at the time, which is generally attributed to his 
medical attendant Luke, is much more complete. We can 
trace his strategy. He would settle down in some central 
spot, preferably a Roman conventus or assize town, such as 
Ephesus, Philippi, or Corinth. Very often he found a 
favourable starting-point in the local synagogue ; and if 
the doors of the synagogue were closed to him when it 
was discovered how revolutionary his teaching really was, 
at least he had by that time made good his footing among the 
" God-fearers." Sometimes he spoke quite publicly, like 
the Cynic preachers, in the market-places. At Ephesus 
he hired a philosophers lecture-hall after the morning session 
was over, and gave instruction there daily from 1 1 to 4.9 
Meanwhile he supported himself by his trade of tent- 
making. At Corinth his trade was the means of winning 
him a footing among the Jews of the place, and of gaining 
for him one of his most permanent friendships. He found 
work with a Jew from the Black Sea and his wife, who 
apparently were in a somewhat large way in the tent-manu- 
facturing business, and travelled between Rome and Ephesus. 
Prisca and Aquila (the lady is almost always mentioned first) 
became his trusted coadjutors in the mission ; and the 
incident may suggest to us how the very mobile conditions 
of international trade and industry in that period lent them- 
selves to the spread of new ideas. 10 

After preaching came the organization of the new 

8 II Cor. xi. 23-28, I Cor. iv. 9-13, Gal. iv. 13, II Cor. xii. 

9 This piece of information is given only in certain MSS. of 
Ac. m. 9, but it probably embodies a good tradition. 

10 Ac. rviii. 2-3, 18-20, I Cor. xvi. 19. 


Christians into communities, formed partly on the model of 
the Jewish synagogue with its traditions of self-government, 
and partly on the lines of the guilds and brotherhoods, which 
were so popular among the middle and lower classes of the 
Empire. The actual amount of organization was kept 
to a minimum, and free co-operation was the central idea. 
The members of these communities were mainly obscure 
persons, many of them poor persons, slaves or freedmen, 
some of them in business, or holding positions under the 
municipalities, or even in the imperial Civil Service. 
A few, but not many, persons of wealth ; a few, but 
not many, highly educated persons, might be found in close 
fellowship with their poorer neighbours in the brotherhood 
of the Christian Church. 11 

With these scattered communities Paul kept in constant 
touch, partly through his own and his friends' continual 
travels, and partly by correspondence, of which we possess 
some valuable specimens. These letters are for the most 
part called forth by circumstances. They do not set out 
to be " literature," but to meet the occasion. One of them 
is a brief note to a personal friend, about a slave who had 
run away. Most of the others discuss matters of interest 
to the particular churches addressed. Two only, those to 
the Romans and to the Ephesians, make any attempt at a 
systematic and comprehensive statement of a line of thought. 
It is from these fragmentary materials that we have to 
reconstruct Paul's ideas. It is obvious that we cannot hope 
in such circumstances to attain great completeness or pre- 
cision. But while there are disadvantages in possessing our 
materials in this casual form, there are advantages which 
more than compensate. The letters of Paul are intensely 

11 I Cor* L 26, Rom. xvi. 23, Phil. v. 22, Phm. 8-16 
(master and skve) ; the persons who are mentioned as entertaining 
the local congregation in their house must have been relatively 
wdl-to-do : see Rom. xvi. 5, 23, 1 Cor. xvi. 19, Col. iv. 1 5, Phm. 2 


alive alive as few documents are alive which have come 
down to us from so remote antiquity. The7 give us, not a 
mere scheme of thought, but a living man. We have 
the same intimate knowledge of Paul that we have, also 
through his letters, of Cicero, and of scarcely anyone 
else in those times. 

He was a person of extraordinary versatility and variety 
He was an enthusiast and a mystic, with powers of rapt 
contemplation beyond the common. He was also one who 
could apply the cold criticism of reason to his own dreams, 
and assess soberly the true value of the more abnormal 
phenomena of religion. This combination of enthusiasm 
with sanity is one of his most eminent marks of greatness. 
His thought is strong and soaring, adventurous rather than 
systematic. He had a hospitable mind, and a faculty for 
assimilating and using the ideas of others which is a great 
asset to anyone who has a new message to propagate : he 
could think in other people's terms. In it all he was 
dominated by a white-hot zeal for the truth of which he 
was convinced as he was convinced of his own existence ; 
and more, by a personal devotion to "the Lord Jesus," 
as he habitually called the divine Person who, as he believed, 
had spoken to him first on the road to Damascus and never 
again left his side. That devotion was his religion, and it 
controlled his thought and his life. With this went a 
strong humanity, and a longing that others should enter 
into the free and j oyous life that he had found. This longing 
was not the mere fervour of the religious bigot for his own 
creed. It was the passion of a man who loved men and 
had a genius for friendship. His was a warmly emotional 
nature, passionate in affection, passionate also in opposition 
when his hostility was aroused. He said and wrote things 
he was sorry for, when he wrote or spoke in heat ; but it 
was always a generous heat, kindled by no selfish feelings. 
The most difficult lesson he had to learn from his Lord 


was that of tolerance and charity. We can see him again 
and again in his letters pulling the rein upon his passion 
lest it get out of control. It was perhaps partly a sense 
of the need to cultivate tolerance, partly a sense of strategy, 
which led him at times into ways of accommodation 
which were easily misunderstood, not only, perhaps, by 
opponents. He may have made mistakes in this direction, 
but we car hardly respect too highly the efforts of this 
naturally intolerant man to " become all things to all men " 
to go to the very verge of compromise, and to risk mis- 
understanding, that he might assert the central and essential 
principle over against relatively unimportant accidents. 
That he was able to do so was the result of a sympathy 
sufficiently rare in strong, self-confident natures which 
could see very clearly the other man's point of view. This 
faculty sometimes makes difficulties for Paul's interpreters ! 
To these qualities it is hardly necessary to add, so patent is 
it, that this man displayed an inflexible determination, a 
persistence that nothing could weary, and a courage that 
was not a mere constitutional audacity, but a steady forti- 
tude prepared for anything except retreat. 12 

He fell a victim to the malice of his old associates, who 
could not forgive him for becoming the leader in a movement 
which had shaken their position to its foundations. On a 
visit to Jerusalem he was set upon by a mob, and rescued 
by the Roman officer in command of the garrison. The 
Jewish authorities preferred charges against him which he 
offered to answer, as was his privilege, before the Emperor's 
tribunal. The result of the appeal was that he attained, 

Ia The personal traits of the man come out most vividly in 
the Second Epistle to the Corinthians and in those to the Galatians 
and Philippians. To read these letters rapidly through, either 
in the original or in a good modern translation, neglecting for 
the moment the details of the argument, is the best way to dis- 
cover the Apostle as a real man. 


in strange fashion, his lifelong ambition of visiting Rome. T 3 
During a long imprisonment he continued his activities, 
both by intercourse with a wide circle in the City, and by a 
lively correspondence, which contains some of the most 
mature fruits of his thought. Towards the end, however, 
he found himself almost forsaken, and it was a lonely man 
whom we see dimly through the mists of tradition led to the 
Three Fountains by the Ostian Way to receive the sword- 
stroke which was his last prerogative as a Roman. His 
tomb is beneath "St. Paul's without the Walls" ; and in 
spite of the mighty impression he made in his own day, in 
spite of the veneration of his name, for the bulk of the 
Christian Church this passionate champion of a religion 
free, personal, and ethical remains " outside the walls.'* J 4 
It is for those who can never satisfy themselves with insti- 
tutional or legal religion that he has in every age a message. 

Z 3 Ac. ixi.*-xiviii. The epistles to the Ephesians, Philip- 
pians, Colossians, and Philemon probably belong to the Roman 

J 4 I cannot remember to whom I owe this allusion to San Polo 
fuori le Mura. There seems no reason to reject the tradition 
that this noble building marks the actual burial-place of the Apostle. 


How did the first great Christian missionary look upon 
the world he lived in, its condition and destiny ? Paul 
has been regarded as a pessimist, and if optimism means the 
belief that this world as it stands is the best of all possible 
worlds, then it is difficult to clear him of the charge. He 
found the world deeply marked with failure and imperfec- 
tion ; but he never dreamed that it need remain so, or that 
it could ultimately remain so, 1 The whole universe, he 
says, is groaning and travailing in pain. It is full of suffer- 
ing and it is a slave to decay " subject to vanity.** That 
word, echoing the haunting refrain of Ecclesiastes, the 
classic of pessimism, accurately calls up those suggestions 
of tiresome futility which the world of nature with its 
ceaseless round of change and decay brought to the mind of 
Paul as of many other observers, especially in the East. Man 
too is part of nature, and shares its heritage of pain and 
thwarted endeavour. " They were born ; they were 
wretched ; they died." So in an Eastern tale the Wise Man 
sums up the course of human history. So far the outlook 
of Paul does agree with the typical Oriental pessimism. 

But for him that is not the whole story. Beside 
the groaning and travailing there is in the world an 
"eager expectation." The whole universe, with head 
outstretched and intense gaze, is waiting for something very 
glorious which shall finally deliver it from slavery to futility 
and give a meaning to all its pangs. It is a sorry world, but 

1 What follows is mainly based on Rom. viii* 18 2C. 


an expectant world, subject to vanity but saved in hope; 
travailing now, but destined to glory. It is a world, above 
all, with a real history ; and that is what Oriental pessimism 
never allows. But the conception of a universe in which 
there is real movement and real development is very con- 
genial to the modern mind. Indeed, we feel ourselves here 
very much at one with Paul in his view of the world. We, 
like him, dare not deny the miserable facts of pain and failure, 
in nature and in man as part of nature ; but we would fain 
believe that the change and flux have a tendency, and that 
tendency an upward one. That the upward tendency is 
automatic and inevitable we are perhaps less sure than our 
fathers. Perhaps we feel, like Paul, that the universe or 
at least this earth is waiting for something. And perhaps, 
too, Paul was right in thinking that the key to its destiny 
was in the hand of man. 

For us, even more definitely than for him, man is 
part of nature. In man the energy of the material 
world, the instinct of animal life, rises precariously 
and incompletely, but really into the sphere of con- 
sciousness and of will. In him the apparently blind 
impulse towards greater perfection working, as we 
believe, in the universe, attains a measure of freedom 
and self-direction. In him also instinct, become rational, 
can turn back upon the material world out of which he has 
partly emerged and actually control its changes, aid its 
advance, intercept its decay. Directly upon his body, 
indirectly upon, other parts of the physical universe, the 
thought of man, and the action which is the outcome of 
his thought, works beneficently or destructively according 
to his choice. For the most part his action upon the world 
seems blundering and of doubtful value. The immense 
control of matter that man has gained our so-called 
progress " is of very uncertain benefit to the universe 
concieved as a system aiming at perfection in every part after 


its kind. But if man himself could be different ; if his 
own life were altered by the attainment of right relations 
with God and with his fellow-man, his role in the world in 
which he lives might be a more beneficent one than we 
can well imagine. The artist uses the material world as 
means to the expression of that love of beauty which is 
one aspect of the love of God, and thereby transfigures 
the material delivers it, as Paul might say, from the bondage 
of decay into the liberty of glory. If we could all become 
artists over the whole of life, using our whole environment 
to express the highest spiritual relations within our reach, 
is it not possible that the influence of humanity upon 
the world might change its whole aspect ? Paul at least 
thought that in some way the universe was waiting for man 
to attain right relations in the spiritual sphere " waiting 
for the revealing of the sons of God," 

A recent poem addresses " Everyman " in language 
which beautifully suggests a thought akin to Paul's. 3 

" All things search until they find 
God through the gateway of thy mind. 

Highest star and humblest clod 
Turn home through thee to God. 

When thou rejoicest in the rose 
Blissful from earth to heaven she goes 5 

Upon thy bosom summer seas 
Escape from their captivities j 

Within thy sleep the sightless eyes 
Of night revisage Paradise ; 

* Quoted from the poem To Everyman, by Edith Anne Stewart, 
published in the Nation^ November 1918. 


In thy soft awe yon mountain high 
To his creator draweth nigh 5 

This lonely tarn, reflecting thee. 
Returned) to eternity ; 

And thus in thee the circuit vast 
Is rounded and complete at last, 

And at last, through thee revealed 

To God, what time and space concealed." 

How Paul conceived the " emancipation " of the 
physical world we cannot tell. Many contemporary 
thinkers imagined a miraculous change of the very sub- 
stance of things a new heaven and a new earth in 
strict literalness. Paul may have shared the belief* But 
the important point seems to be that he conceived such 
a change as no accident, but directly connected with 
the working out of human relations. In attacking what 
was wrong with men he firmly believed that he was 
attacking the problem of the universe. Shall we put it in 
this way, that the problem of reality is at bottom a problem 
of personal relations ? 3 No purely physical speculations will 
ever solve for us the problem of this tangled universe. 
Personality holds the clue ; and the solution is personal and 
practical The spiritual aspirations of man, faithfully 
followed, let us into the secret of evolution and give the 
only hint we can get of its purposes. 

We turn, then, from the Apostle's philosophy of the world 
to his philosophy of human history. We shall expect to 
find it based upon a gloomy estimate of human life as it is, 
saved from pessimism by a tremendous faith in what it may 
become. He saw the world of men in two opposing 

3 This is a dominant idea, as I understand it, of Mr. Fearon 
Halliday's book in this series, Reconciliation and Reality. 



groups his own nation and pagan society, i.e. practically 
the pagan Graeco-Roman Empire. His interest in that 
Empire, its ethical and social life and problems, was intense. 
It dated, doubtless, not from his conversion to Christianity, 
but from his youth at Tarsus. Only the character of that 
interest was changed from condemnation and despair to 
hope when he looked afresh with the eyes of Christ. The 
Empire indeed, as he saw it, was rotten with vice and injus- 
tice. His picture of pagan morals in the opening chapter 
>f the Epistle to the Romans is lurid, but most of it could 
bs corroborated from pagan sources. His judgment, 
however, was not undiscriminating or blind. Even in the 
pigan he recognized a natural knowledge of God, a con- 
science bearing witness to a "law written on the heart," 
ai instinctive knowledge of right and wrong.4 Its political 
system, he confessed, aimed at the vindication of right and 
the suppression of wrong, and in its measure succeeded. 5 
Its imperial law restrained the threatened outbreak of 
undiluted and anarchic evil. 6 And yet he saw a monstrous 
perversion of the whole. A mass of humanity, the off- 
spring of God, had somehow taken a wrong turn so decisive 
that at every step it was farther from God. The light that 
was in it had become darkness ; and God had given it over 
n its own unrestrained passions. 

It is in this strain that Paul inveighs in his letter to Rome 
against the corruption of the Pagan world ; and so far, we 
can imagine an audience of Pharisaic Jews listening with 
applause. Suddenly Paul turns upon them and drives home 
the charge that they have known better but not done better. 
" You call yourself a Jew, and rely upon your law, and 
boast of your God. . . . You set up for a guide of the blind, 
a light to the benighted, a trainer of the ignorant, a teac er of 
infants. , . . You teach others, but do not teach yourself. 

4 Rom. i. 19, ii. 14-15. 5 R m. xiii. 1-6. 

* II Thess. ii. 6-7 


You preach * Do not steal,' and you are a thief ! YOIL 
preach * Do not commit adultery,* and you are an 
adulterer ! You abominate ' idols,' but you plunder 
their temples ! You, who boast about your law, by break- 
ing the law dishonour God ! " 7 They are strong words 
for a Jew to use to Jews. We can surely overhear in them 
the indignant shame of a high-minded Israelite who found 
that in the great cities of the pagans men of his own race 
had made the name of Jew to stink by their hypocrisy and 

We must not forget that the darkness of this picture is 
relieved by a pagan here and there who " did by nature the 
things of the Law " and by at least a faithful remnant among 
renegade Israel. But Paul found nowhere, neither in the- 
pagan world nor yet among his own people, the moral power 
and stability which his sense of the divine holiness demanded 
of u sons of God." Out of the mass of weakness and corrup- 
tion the universe awaited their revealing : where could they 
be found ? To the inquiring mind, all history comes to be 
a search for the family of God, the Divine Commonwealth 
through which alone man and the world can attain emanci- 
pation. This Commonwealth of the sons of God can only 
be of God's own creation. Thus from the divine point of 
view history shows God seeking His sons among sinful 
humanity. Paul had inherited from his Pharisaic training 
a belief in divine predestination, though the Pharisees, we 
are told, somehow managed to preserve alongside of this- 
doctrine a belief in human free will. The use, however, 
which Paul makes of the doctrine is most instructive. It is- 
for him the means of asserting and maintaining the freedom- 
and originality of God's personal dealings with men. 

The Pharisaic God was for practical purposes an Absentee. 
He had created the world ; at a few points in the remote 
past He had definitely intervened ; in the future He would 
? Rom. ii. i-ii. 


once more intervene in Judgment ; but in the present age 
the history of man was the mechanical working-out of an 
inexorable Law. The pagan mind, on the other hand, was 
"haunted by fatalism. In that age philosophy tended to 
support with its authority the ancient popular superstition 
.that a man's fete was controlled by his stars. You were 
born with a certain horoscope, and by that your fete was 
irrevocably fixed. That the dominion of the "world- 
rulers," the "elemental spirits," was broken 8 was a part of 
the message of primitive Christianity which scarcely appeals 
to us ; but it came with the sense of a tremendous relief 
-to the spirit-ridden mind of the first century, as it still comes 
to many in China and India. Over against the mechani- 
cal rule of law and the domination of the fetal star alike, 
Paul maintains that God always and in every age is free to 
deal personally with men. 9 He called Abraham to be His 
son, but He did not then leave natural heredity to produce 
His Divine Commonwealth. He chose Isaac ; He chose 
Jacob ; He called seven thousand in Elijah's day, who stood 
firm against the idolatry of their time ; He chose the faithful 
remnant on whom Isaiah set his hope the saving salt of a 
lost people. Last of all He ordained as His Son Jesus the 
son of David " according to the flesh," and through Him 
brought a multitude out of all nations into " adoptive son- 
ship." 10 At every point a free, personal act of God. 

The doctrine of absolute and arbitrary divine sovereignty 
which accompanies this view of history seems to us 
destructive of human freedom in any real sense ; but 
in the early preaching of the Gospel it served a purpose of 

8 The <mux*a of Gal. iv. 3, 9, CpL ii. 8, 20, are not the 
material c dements * of which the world is made, but the * phantom 
intelligences/ as Mr. Thomas Hardy might call them, supposed 
to animate and control the visible universe. Cf. Eph. vi. 12. 

9 Rom. ir., xi. 1-12. 

x Rom. i. 3-4, Gal. iii. 16-17, J 9> ** 4~5 


the highest value. If you could believe that your destiny 
was not decided by the working of mechanical law, or 
determined by a ruthless fate, but that the divine vocation 
of which you were conscious in your own soul was an act of 
sovereign power on the part of a God present here and now 
to save you, it would surely give a new sense of assurance 
and stability in the face of all hostile forces. It is with 
that intent that Paul always makes use of the argument 
from predestination, " Those whom He foreknew He 
also predestined ; and those whom He predestined He also 
called. ... If God be for us, who can be against us ? " ' 
And any philosophy which admits a divine government of 
the universe must leave a place for something like this 
Pauline theory of a "selective purpose." I2 As Paul meant 
it, it is not a doctrine of determinism, but rather a protest 
against the prevalent determinism of his time by the- 
assertion that a real " fresh start " is possible at any time- 
where God comes into fresh touch with man. 

So much for history viewed from the divine end. From 
the human end it is the story of the progressive response of 
sons of God to the calling of their Father, and the resultant 
constitution of the People of God. On man's part,, 
simple trust in God gives play to the divine purpose. 
The inevitable instance of such trust in the past was 
Abraham : " Abraham trusted God," Paul quotes more 
than oncers So soon as a man was found to take that 
attitude to God, the People of God, or the Divine Common- 
wealth, was already in existence, if only in germ. It was 
maintained and increased, Paul argued, by exactly the same 
means, by the successive perspnal response of men in each 

" Rom. viii. 28-39, Eph. i. 3-14, cf. Gal. i. 15. 

13 tar' ktcXoyriv irpititnc, Rom. iz. II. A transposition of 
the terms would give us * purposive selection/ as distinct from 
merely * natural "selection.' 

X 3 Gal. iii. 6-18, Rom. iv. 


.-generation to the calling of God. z 4 Behind all the scholastic 
arguments of the Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians 
lies the crucial question whether religion is a matter 
of national inheritance and external tradition, or a matter 
of ever-fresh personal response to the gracious dealing of 
God. In form, the nation founded by Abraham was the 
People of God ; but " the majority of them God did not 
choose," as was shown by the fact that in spite of their 
participation in the ordinances of the Covenant they " were 
unfaithful."^ The nation possessed the outward forms of a 
Divine Commonwealth or Kingdom of God or "Theo- 
cracy," but it 'was only a minority in the heart of it that kept 
.hold of the reality. Elijah's Seven Thousand, Isaiah's 
Remnant these were the representatives of the true 
People of God, the faithful Divine Commonwealth hidden 
in the bosom of apostate Israel. 16 Not that even they could 
k be said to have attained perfect obedience to the precepts 
of the divine Will, or to be able to claim God's favour on 
the basis of their own achievement, but their u faith " in 
God kept them true, amid doubts, uncertainties, failures, 
and imperfections, as they waited confidently for the next 
stage of His dealing. For the time being, this Divine 
Commonwealth was in "bondage." Like an heir in his 
minority " under tutors and guardians," it led a kind of 
provisional existence under the shadow of the Law, unable 
to win freedom of action or to become a power of salvation 
to the world. 17 

X 4 Rom. ix. 6-29, ii. 4-7, Gal. iii. 7-9. 

I Cor* x. i-io, cf. Rom. iii. 1-20. The word cvfow-Iv 
does not mean approval following upon conduct, but a free self- 
determination on the part of God; cf* Gal. i. 15, I Cor. i. 21, 
Col. i. 19, Eph. i. 5, 9, Phil. ii. 13. 

16 Rom. xi. 4, ix. 27-29, 

** Gal. iii. 23-24, iv. 1-3 : note that these statements are 
made not about any particular individuals, but about the People 
of God considered as an historical entity. 


The upshot of past history, as Paul saw it, may be 
put in these terms : in the pagan world, a few isolated 
individuals doing, in some measure, the will of God 
as revealed in their consciences, but unable to form a 
real community; 18 in Israel, a Theocracy in form, but 
so bound and hedged about as to be unable to effect 
anything for God in the world at large. The prophets 
had always foreseen that this age must be succeeded by 
another, in which the free life of the Spirit should create 
a world-wide society or Kingdom of God. Now with the 
Resurrection of Christ, Paul held, this new age began. The 
heir had come of age j the dim light of an ever-deferred hope 
had given place to the clear dawning of the u The Day.' 7 Iu 
Out of Israel and out of the pagan world alike God was 
calling His sons into a real community-life through which 
the world should be saved. This is the " mystery kept 
silent through agelong periods, but now revealed." 20 A 
"mystery" to Paul's Greek readers meant a dramatic 
spectacle which conveyed to those who had the key deep 
truths of the unseen world unsuspected by the " profane " 
mind, and not to be expressed in language. Even so the 
historic drama of Christ's death and resurrection had brought 
into clear light the hidden purposes of God, by uniting 
faithful men, out of all nations and classes, in one firm 
commonwealth free and powerful to do the will of God. 

Thus the New Age had begun. That is a fundamental 
belief of all early Christians. They knew they were living 
at a crisis at the crisis of History. They were " children 
of The Day " the day of God's self-revelation ; they 

*8 This is the judgment also of the author of IV Ezra : see 
iii. 36, " Individual men of note : ndeed Thou mayst find to have 
kept Thy precepts ; but nations Thou shalt not find " (c. A.D. 100). 

X 9 I Thess. v. 4-8, II Thess. i. 10, ii. 2, I Cor. i. 8 iii. 13,. 
v. 5, II Cor. i. 14, vi. 2, Rom. xiii. 12-13, Phil. i. 6, 10, ii. 16. 

* Rom. xri. 25-26, Col. i. 25-29, and espec. Eph. iii. 1-12* 


were inhabitants of a new world. 21 They were quite sure 
that fresh powers had entered into them, and that the 
divine purpose was forcing its way through their efforts 
into the world at large. And though they knew also that 
the time of crisis must bring sufferings which they must 
share, of which indeed they must bear the brunt, 22 yet they 
were upheld and animated by a vivid hope to which nothing 
seemed too good to be true. That hope clothed itself in 
strange apocalyptic imagery. Paul, in his earlier letters, 
and no doubt in his earlier preaching, made free use of this 
imagery, though it is clear that he was all the time re-inter- 
preting it. At first he certainly expected that before long 
at all events in his lifetime Christ would visibly return 
and lead His people in an aggressive campaign against all 
evil ; *3 that He would reign over a Kingdom which would 
come to include those Israelites who in the course of the 
" selective purpose " had fallen out by the way, and, we may 
take it, those pagans also who had hitherto remained un- 
repentant, until the whole race should be gathered into 
one. 3 4 At the End of All, having put down all hostile or 
rival authority and power in heaven and on earth, He 
would offer us all to God, and God would be all and 
in all.5 

ai I Thess. v. 5, I Cor. x. 1 1. Paul never says in so many 
words, as does his follower the author to the Hebrews, that 
Christians possess ' the power* of the coming age ' (Heb. vi. 5) ; 
but something of the kind is implied both in his constant antithesis 
of Christianity to ' this age ' (Rom. xii. 2, I Cor. ii. 6-8, II Cor. 
iv. 4, Gal. i. 4, Eph, ii. 2, etc.), and in his use of eschatological 
language in the present or perfect tense instead of the future 
(Rom. i. 17-18, aTronaXv-rrrerai, I Cor. i. 1 8, II Cor. ii. 15, 
cru^6fjLyoL 9 cnroXXvfjLeyQL, I Thess. ii. 1 6 <tfa<7' rj opyrj etc.). 

" I Thess. iii. 3, Col. i. 24, Rom. v. 3-5, cf. II Cor. xii, 10, 
Phil. iii. 10. 

*3 L Thess. iv. I3~v. ii, II Thess. ii. r-io. 

*4 Rom. zi. 11-33. 

*5 I Cor. iv. 20-28. 


Putting aside so far as we can what is (for us at least) 
merely figurative in this sketch of the future, we can at 
least see how for Paul the time in which he lived was 
the turning-point of history ; before Christ, the disinte- 
gration of humanity, and the gradual selection of a small 
remnant to carry on God's purpose ; from the coming of 
Christ, the re-integration of the race, the inclusion, step 
by step, of the " rejected," and the attainment of final unity 
for all that is, in the perfected Sovereignty or Kingdom of 
God. As he grew older, the apocalyptic imagery of the 
earlier days tended to disappear at least from the foreground 
of his thought, and more and more his mind came to dwell 
upon the gradual growth and upbuilding of the Divine 
Commonwealth. He saw the Church going out into the 
world to save the world, ready to " fill up what was lacking 
of the sufferings of Christ " for the sake of mankind, and 
restlessly seeking out the sons of God in the name of their 
Father. He saw it impelled ever further and further in 
the quest, constrained by the love of Christ, reconciling, 
liberating, including in its universal fellowship Jew and 
Greek, barbarian, Scythian, slave, freeman, and so working 
out the divine purpose to " sum up all things in Christ." 26 
If this is an idealized picture of what the Church has been 
even at its best, it gives the standard of what it might be, 
a perpetual rebuke and challenge to a Church which has 
fallen from its ideal. 

* Col. i. 17-29, ii, 19, iii. 10-11, EpL i. 3-ii. 23, cf. Phil. ii. 




AN attempt has been made in the preceding chapter to 
sketch the philosophy of history which can be discovered 
in the writings of Paul. In its main outlines it is set forth 
in his letter to the Christians of Rome. That fact is not 
without significance. The Epistle to the Romans is the 
manifesto of Paul's missionary programme written at the 
very height of his activity, in the near prospect of a visit to 
the imperial centre of the world. For the Romans, as for 
us, it was necessary to have some understanding of his 
philosophy of history if they were to appreciate what were 
his aims and principles in preaching the Christian Gospel 
throughout the Roman world. The hope of the world, 
as he saw it, lay in the " revelation of the sons of God " 
the realization of the Divine Commonwealth. In his 
faith in Christ he held the key to the "mystery" of 
that Divine Commonwealth. He knew the secret of its 
realization. Hence he \vas a missionary. 

In the circles in which Paul was brought up there was a 
perfectly definite theory about the Divine Commonwealth. 
He was a Jew, and the Jews believed themselves to be in 
the most absolute sense God's chosen people. The divine 
blessing was an estate entailed upon the historic nation 
derived, as was believed, from Abraham, and preserved 
intact through the centuries by its observance of the 


institutions summed up in the Mosaic Code. The 
reverence and enthusiasm with which these archaic 
institutions were regarded are almost inconceivable. 
That they represented the eternal laws of all reality 
was held certain. It was said that the Law was the 
pre-existent plan accord ; ng to which the world had 
been created, and that the Deity spent eternity in its 
study. 1 The purport of such apparently hyperbolic ex- 
pressions was clearly to identify the particular set of rules 
for life and thought contained in the Pentateuch with 
absolute truth and absolute right. With such a belief 
it is no wonder that those who took it seriously had an out- 
look upon the world which bears the appearance of national 
arrogance run to an almost insane extreme. Strangely, and 
yet intelligibly enough, even the Jew whose personal life 
and conduct had little resemblance to the high ethical ideals 
of the Old Testament felt an exaltation of spirit as he thought 
that his nation alone of all peoples of the earth possessed 
the inmost secret of things. The rest of mankind was there 
for Israel's sake 3 to serve Israel or to chastise Israel as 
might be Jehovah's inscrutable purpose, but in any case 
to be subjugated or blotted out in the end, when God should 

1 For passages from Rabbinic tradition setting forth these 
ideas, see Weber, System Jer altsynagogalcn p&lastinischen Theologie 
(1880), pp. 14-18. Much of this material is certainly late, 
but it doubtless represents earlier views. The earliest definite 
statement I can recall is the saying of R. Akiba, quoted p. 69. 

a See especially IV Ezra (II Esdras) vi. 55-56: " Thou hast 
said that for our sakes thou hast created this world. But as for 
the other nations which are descended from Adam, thou hast 
said that they are nothing, and that they are like unto spittle, and 
thou hast likened the abundance of them to a drop on a bucket.* 
This portion of IV Ezra is dated by internal evidence to A.D. 100. 
The proud self-consciousness of Israel in contrast to the idolatrous 
Gentiles is finely expressed in Wisdom xv. which offers an instruc- 
tive comparison with Rom, Hi. 


finally declare His judgment. The Jewish people was the 
Divine Commonwealth. 

The Pharisaic party which cherished these views with 
deepest conviction was by no means indifferent to the fate of 
the non- Jewish world. It is even probable that this sect 
was prominent in the vigorous Jewish propaganda which 
was going forward throughout the Mediterranean area at the 
time when Christianity appeared. But in the nature of 
things such propaganda could only be a kind of spiritual 
imperialism. It rested on the assumption of the inherent 
and eternal superiority of one nation and one form of culture 
over all others. Individuals of other nations could be incor- 
porated in the chosen people, but it was only as naturalized 
aliens that they could take their place. They were held 
at arm's length, admitted only grudgingly and by degrees 
to the spiritual privileges of Israel, and they could only be 
full members of the community by adopting all the peculiar, 
and in part barbarous, rites and observances of the Jewish 
religion, including the rite of circumcision, which was 
counted by Greeks and Romans a degradation. It was 
no wonder that the civilized world of the time looked with 
scorn upon these pretensions, so opposed to the broad 
humanism of the Stoics with their gospel of Cosmopolis, the 
City of Zeus. For all that, Judaism had somewhere within 
it a moral passion and power of regeneration before which 
even Stoicism was impotent. Many an earnest soul was 
willing even to bow to the arrogant pretensions of the Jew 
for the sake of the ethical reality he stood for, so strangely 
high and pure in spite of the meanness of its earthly 

In such a position of affairs we can see the peril to the 
future of humanity. It is not good that men should submit 
themselves to the dictation of any one people, whether in 
politics or in religion. It is not good that the highest 
personal morality should be associated with a corporate 


egotism. All imperialisms are a denial of the fundamental 
unity of mankind, however bright their fallacious promise 
of such a unity. The propaganda of Imperialism is a 
propaganda against the brotherhood of man, and if missions 
to the " heathen " or to the " lower classes " are inspired 
by the national or class egotism which believes that "our 
sort " must be right and everybody else must accept our 
direction, then they are a form of spiritual imperialism. 
" Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, play-actors ! " Jesus 
is reported to have said; "you traverse sea and land 
to make one convert, and when he is there, you make 
him twice as much a child of Gehenna as yourselves." 3 
It sounds severe, even unfair, but religious propa- 
ganda which rests on sectional pride always runs this 

Paul the Jew had to suffer the shattering of his deepest 
beliefs before he came through to a new conception of a 
missionary's work. He had to learn that there was no 
distinction of Jew and Gentile. It needs some effort of 
the imagination to realize what this surrender cost him. 
Perhaps it was like an American of the South being obliged 
to admit that he must sit at the feet of the negro, or an 
Australian asked to view with equanimity, even to further, 
the spread of " yellow " civilization. As a young man he 
had heard the humanistic talk of popular Stoicism at Tarsus, 
and his religious instincts revolted against what seemed an 
obliteration of profound moral distinctions. Now he must 
capitulate. The Stoics were right : God had made of one 
stock all nations on earth. 4 Of all He made the same 
demands, to all the same offer on the same terms. 
In the present corruption of the world no one nation 
could stand aloof and say, "This is the wickedness of 
other people." If humanity was cursed by sin, all 
had sinned, whether Jew or pagan, and all had missed 
3 Mt. xziii. 15. 4 Ac. xvii. 26. 


the divine splendour of ideal humanity.5 God alone 
could make good what was amiss, and He could do it 
only with men who abandoned all self-confidence (all 
" glorying in the flesh," as our translation of Paul has it). 
How this new creation was to take place we must presently 
inquire. For the moment we are concerned to see this 
man as the pioneer of a new method of establishing the 
Divine Commonwealth. He saw it growing like a body, 
cell to cell : or built like a temple, stone to stone, through 
the sharing of a common life, the surrender to a common 
purpose* The union of mankind he saw taking place at a 
level of common humanity deeper than all the ramifications 
of nationality, culture, sex or status. He asked only that 
each should confess his part in the general wrong, and trust 
God to put him right in God's own way not the way of his 
preference (" not my own righteousness, but the righteous- 
ness which comes from God through trusting Him"). 
On that common basis he saw a unity growing out of the 
very diversity of men's minds and gifts many members, 
but one body 5 diversity of gifts, but one spirit. 6 On these 
terms he appealed to the devout Pharisee of the Jewish 
synagogue, to the philosophers of Athens, the civil servants 
of the Empire at Rome, the traders of Corinth, the artisans 
of Ephesus, the slaves and " riff-raff" of the seaport towns, 
the half-Greek inhabitants of Asiatic cities, and the bar- 
barians of Malta and the Lycaonian highlands. With this 
demand he stood before kings and proconsuls, and with the 
same offer he won the rascal fugitive slave Onesimus, and 
made him c * a brother beloved." 

It has already been indicated that ideas of a universal 
commcnwealth were present in the pagan world. Rome, 
largely inspired by the sublime ideals of Stoicism (which in 

5 Rom. in. 9-23. 

6 I Cor. xii. 12-14, Eph. ii- 19-22, iv. 4-16 ; Gal. iiL 26-28, 
Col, iii. 9-11 ; Rom. iii. 21-30, Phi. ii . 3-9. 


PauPs time gave a Prime Minister to the Empire, and in 
the next century ascended the throne itself), was con- 
sciously aiming at its establishment. Paul, himself a 
Roman, was stirred by the thought of what Rome was 
doing. Imperial Rome is the background of his greatest 
epistle, and the writing of it was largely inspired by the 
thrilling prospect of setting up the standard of Christ on its 
ancient Seven Hills. And yet he knew that Rome must 
fail. The Roman Empire could never become the King- 
dom of God. It lacked the moral foundation. Even its 
philosophic instructors were content to compromise with 
institutions which oppressed men and superstitions which 
degraded them. The Empire was founded on violence : 
Rome ** made a solitude and called it peace." It trans- 
cended national boundaries, but it ruled by an upper class 
of the privileged and showed its contempt for the poor 
by giving them "bread and circuses,'* Its blossoming might 
be the fine flower of humane culture, but its roots were 
in the degradation of slavery. And it demanded the abject 
worship of an autocrat, which meant bondage, not of the 
body alone, but of the spirit. The failure, in the end, of 
this magnificent attempt to unify the human race justified 
Paul's judgment on it. He sought its best ends, by means 
which did not kill but made alive the individual spirit. 
Rome crushed the individual to glorify the State. In the 
end it destroyed itself by strangling or crippling every 
institution of local government and every guild or corpora- 
tion through which free co-operation was possible. It was 
characteristic of Paul's mission that wherever he worked 
there sprang up live, vigorous local communities, free and 
democratic, where individual initiative was prized and 
individual gifts found play. Each of these communities 
felt itself to be a living embodiment of that City of God 
whose ultimate reality was eternal in the heavens. " Your 
citizenship is in heaven " you are a colony of the Divine 


Commonwealth Paul wrote to the Christians of the 
Roman colony of Philippi.7 This was because in each 
individual member the great change had taken place 
whereby the "life of the (New) Age" 8 became a personal 

There is nothing which in the last resort can unite man- 
kind but the free contagion of this life. It is a current 
view to-day that economic interdependence will unify 
mankind. It is questionable. Nor indeed can political 
organization attain that end, as we are learning every day, 
unless the spirits of men be made one. We see rather 
a forecast of the true process when the vision of the 
artist or the rapture of the musician draws men together 
across the barriers, for they too have touched life at a point 
deeper than our transient divisions. But there is some- 
thing deeper and more universal than art or music, and of 
that Paul speaks. Man is born to be a son of God, and only 
in " the liberty of the splendour of the sons of God " can the 
commonwealth of man be founded. The missionary enter- 
prise of Christianity, in its ideal and largely in its practice, 
is an indication of the true method of building the brother- 
hood of man in which the Kingdom of God may find 
expression. When the missionary enterprise enters, as it has 
sometimes done, into an unnatural alliance with national 
ascendancies and all the superstitions of Empire, it stultifies 
itself. But when the missionary goes out, not as a European 
or an American, but as a Christian simply, a son of God 
seeking brotherly fellowship with sons of God waiting to be 
revealed in all nations when he makes his appeal to the 
simply human in men, speaking the word of reconciliation 

7 Phil. iii. 20. UoXirevfjia is used specifically of a colony 
of settlers who in a strange land reproduce the institutions of their 

8 ZWT? Mnnoc (Rom. v. 21, vi. 22-3, Gal. vi. 8, etc.) 
is properly the life of the cuwv of Messianic power and glory, 
begun here and now for those who are * in Christ.* 


which unites us to God and to each other then he is the 
truest servant of the coining Kingdom that the world can 
show. Such was Paul the Missionary. 

It was not to be expected that Jewish patriotism would 
acquiesce in this treason to the national idea. The tradition 
of privilege was too strong. Even any loftier souls who 
may have given up the dream of political domination yet 
clung tenaciously to their spiritual ascendancy. Jerusalem 
might never become another Rome, but Jerusalem was the 
only conceivably spiritual metropolis of the world. To 
them Paul declared that their Jerusalem was a slave city, 
bound hand and foot to an obsolete tradition : " Jerusalem 
above is free, which is our Mother ! " 9 The unifying 
patriotism of the City of God that " city within whose 
walls the souls of the whole world may assemble " was in 
that watchword pitted against the divisive patriotism of the 
tribal State and tribal religion. That is the inner meaning 
of the fight which Paul waged all his life against his old 

There can be little doubt that in principle the question of 
" universalism " was decided for Paul in the fact of his 
conversion, even though it remains highly probable that 
both his theory of the matter and his practice underwent 
development. The Christianity with which he had come 
into direct conflict was not the timid "right wing" which 
under James the Lord's brother sought a quiet modus 
vivendi with national Judaism, but the militant radical 
section which the martyred Stephen had led into the most 
decisive break with the national and legal tradition. 11 It was 

9 Gal. iv. 21-31. 

** Remain Rolland, Abwt the Battle (Eng. transl. 1916), 
p. 54. 

11 Stephen was accused of speaking against the Temple and 
announcing the supersession of the Mosaic Law, Ac. vi. 13-14. 
It appears that Paul was present at his examination before the 
Sanhcdrin (Ac. viiL I, xxii* 20) and heard his defence, which, 


to this radical Christianity that he was converted. From 
the beginning he had against him the organized force of the 
Jerusalem Sanhedrin and the synagogues. The main 
count in their indictment was that he was a traitor to the 
Law and a confederate of Gentiles. " It is the Jews," he 
wrote bitterly from Corinth in the first letter of his that has 
survived, " who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and 
drove us out, who never obey God, who are the enemies of 
all mankind, and who try to prevent us from speaking to the 
pagans for their salvation" The turn of phrase shows 
how Paul felt about it. 

But he had also against him the conservative right 
wing of the Church, which included some at least 
of die original disciples, though we may believe that 
converts from the sect of the Pharisees formed the 
backbone of the party. x 3 So far as the more moderate 
leaders are concerned, we can understand and respect 
their position. They were cautious in the presence of 
an untried venture. They saw, and perhaps report 
exaggerated, the perils of Paul's bold propaganda. Some 
of the language he used about freedom from law had 
a dangerous suggestion of anarchy. They did not know 
to what subversive doctrines he might commit the 
Christian movement Moreover, they felt, and not un- 
reasonably, that they were likely to know the mind of 
their Master better than this new-comer who had never 
heard Him speak, and they could not think that He 
wished the door quite so widely opened. It is not the 
only time in history that the nearest followers of a 
great leader have failed to understand his secret, even 
while they died for his cause. 

if it is at all faithfully represented by the rather tedious speech 
in Ac. vii, dwelt upon the temporary and relative character of 
both Temple and Law. 

* I Thess. ii. 15-16. *3 Ac. xv. 5, aori. 20. 


Nevertheless, Peter, generous and impulsive as ever, 
had, without thinking much of what was implied, early 
taken steps in the direction of a liberal attitude to 
pagans. It was perhaps his influence which led to 
the concordat under which Paul worked for some time 
with the concurrence of the " pillars " of the Church at 
Jerusalem, and according to the Acts of the Apostles it 
was he who persuaded the Council of Jerusalem to sanc- 
tion a liberal missionary policy in Syria and Cilicia. I 4 And 
indeed when he visited Paul and his friends at Antioch, he 
was quite carried away by the enthusiasm of the forward 
movement. The controversy had come to hinge upon the 
question of eating at table with converts from paganism who 
had not been adopted into the community with the recognized 
Jewish ceremonies, especially circumcision. Large questions 
do sometimes turn upon small points. This point, however,, 
was not so small as it might seem. It is not a small thing 
to-day for an Indian Brahmin to break caste by eating with 
a pariah. Moreover, the Christian brotherhood had from 
the first made its life centre about the common table. To 
refuse to break bread with a fellow-Christian was to deny 
that he had any part in Christ, at whose table the brotherhood 
met. Peter, however, sat at table with these half-Greek 
Syrians in the friendliest way, and the difficulty seemed over. 
Then came members of the extreme "right wing'* 
adherents of James, but no doubt plus royallstes que It 
roi. Peter, frightened, drew back. Even Paul's old friend 
and leader, Barnabas, gave way. The dispute culminated 
in a regrettable public quarrel between Peter and Paul, the 
echoes of which, perhaps, were to be heard later even in the 
Pauline churches. J 5 Peace, however, seems to have 
been restored, as between the leaders. Peter and John 
probably took in the end the liberal view, and even James 

*4 Gal. ii. i-io, Ac. rv. 7-11. 
J 5 Gal. ii. 11-14, cf. I Cor. i. 12. 


kept on friendly terms with Paul, and it was not by any 
ill-will of his, but quite the contrary, that his ill-calculated 
tactics ultimately contributed to Paul's arrest and impri- 
sonment. Ifi 

But the extreme conservatives pursued him everywhere 
with unabated zeal. They opened war by a powerful 
mission to Galatia, where they all but succeeded in winning 
to a Judaic Christianity the churches Paul had founded. 1 ? 
From that time he had to count "perils from false brethren" 
among the difficulties of his work. 18 During most of his 
active life he was a nonconformist and a free-lance, regarded 
with cool and rather suspicious tolerance by some of the most 
respected leaders of the Church, and with horror by the 
" ultra-orthodox " right wing. We need not impugn their 
motives, as Paul did in the heat of controversy. They 
were honest men and zealous servants of the Gospel as they 
understood it Paul made mistakes, and some bad ones, 
in the course of the struggle. But Paul was right and 
his opponents were wrong on the main issue. 

It was the controversy with the Jewish National Party 
in the Church that drove Paul to formulate and defend the 
principles underlying his Gospel. The laboured argument 
which fills krge sections of the letters to Rome and Galatia 
and which has often been treated as almost the only valuable 
element in the Pauline writings is to be regarded as 
apologetic directed against Pharisaic Judaism (which he 
knew by early training from top to bottom) and its revival 
within the Christian Church. This apologetic is almost 
accidental ; it does not represent his missionary preaching ; 
it represents the theoretical justification of its principles 
against those who denied his right so to preach at all in the 
name of Christ. Much of it is argumentum ad hominem 

x * Ac. rxi. 20-30. 

*7 Gal. i. 6-9, iii. 1-5, iv. 12-20, v. 1-12, vi. 12-16. 

& II Cor. zi, 26. 


and of temporary validity only as addressed to those particular 
adversaries. The very success he gained antiquated his 
polemic. But concealed beneath these temporary forms of 
thought is his permanent contribution to the philosophy of 
religion. His victory, indeed, was less complete than it 
seemed. By other channels than that of the Judaistic 
propaganda the old spirit of Pharisaism entered into the 
Church : its narrowness, its formalism, its bondage to 
tradition, its proneness to national and class prejudice. We 
shall not fight it to-day, in ourselves or in the Church, 
with the precise weapons which Paul used 5 but if we can 
read his essential thought out of its obsolete forms into the 
living language of to-day we shall at least know how to 
deal with that undying Pharisee whom most of us carry 
beneath our hats. But, also we shall have learned what 
Christianity is, from the man who, though he knew not 
Christ after the flesh, divined better than any what Christ 
stood and stands for 


WE have seen how Paul saw humanity in evil case, 
and how he devoted himself to its rescue from this evil case 
by " the revealing of the sons of God " as a closely knit 
Divine Commonwealth. More precisely, he saw mankind 
enslaved, and lived for its emancipation ; and he saw it 
alienated, and lived for its reconciliation. Those are the 
two great words of the Pauline gospel : " redemption," 
** atonement." By this time they have become wholly 
theological terms, with their meaning confused by centuries 
of dogmatic definition. " Redemption " was the process 
by which a slave obtained his freedom. Thousands of 
Jews taken prisoners in the wars had been sold into slavery 
in the Roman dominions, and it was a popular work of 
benevolence for wealthy Jews to " redeem " them into liberty. 
That is the source of the metaphor. We shall therefore 
do well to use the term " emancipation " as the nearest 
equivalent of the Pauline expression. " Atonement " 
is an old English word meaning the restoration of unity 
("at-one") between persons who are estranged. In 
Richtird II Shakespeare makes the king say to the rival 
noblemen, Mowbray and Bolingbroke, 

" Since we cannot atone you, we shall see 
Justice design the victor's chivalry." 

The secondary meanings which the word has acquired are 
foreign to the language of Paul In the Authorized Version 



of the New Testament "atonement" is the translation 
of a perfectly ordinary Greek word for the reconciliation 
of estranged persons. Paul saw men divided into hostile 
camps "biting and devouring one another." 1 Behind 
that internecine strife he saw the hostility of men to God 
their common Father. Get rid of the enmity toward God, 
and the divisions of men may be overcome. " While we 
were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death 
of His Son " : " He is our peace, who made both one, and 
broke down that dividing wall, our enmity."* "Reconcilia- 
tion," then, of the estranged, "emancipation" of the 
enslaved, are the cardinal points of Paul's Gospel. 

We have now to ask, What is the enslaving force, and 
what is the cause of the alienation ? To those questions,. 
Paul gives one answer, Sin. That word too, however, he 
used in a sense different from that in which it has come to be 
used in modern theology and ethics. To understand his 
view of sin we must make our way through some rather 
tangled metaphysics. 

Paul conceived reality in a dualistic way. There are 
two planes of being, the one eternal, the other temporal ; 
the one visible, the other invisible.3 The visible world is 
in some sort a revelation of the invisible, but an imperfect 
revelation, for it is entangled in a mesh of decay (" cor- 
rupton "). Decay is, in fact, so inseparable a property of 
the visible world that Paul gives us no other general term 
for its material substance. He simply calls it " decay,'* 
describing it by its most evident property rather than defining 
it. Similarly, he describes the substance, if we may so call it, 
of the invisible world as " splendour " (" glory "), and he 
may have conceived it, with many Greek thinkers, as akin 
to light and fire. 

1 Gal. r. 15* * Rom. v. 10, Eph. ii. 14. 

3 The antithesis of the two orders of being runs through I Cor. 
xv. 40-50; cf. Rom. viii. 20-21, II Cor. iv. i6-v. 4, 


The cosmical aspect of the question, however, is only 
vaguely touched upon. It is only in man that Paul 
shows us anything approaching a complete scheme of 
the relations of the two planes. For man belongs, at 
least potentially, to both. His bodily existence partakes of 
the nature of the temporal and visible : " he wears the image 
of the earthy." In him the visible substance is " flesh," 
material, and inevitably subject to decay. The flesh is 
temporarily animated by the psyche (if we use the word 
" soul " we are suggesting false implications), which is the 
principle of conscious life, including even intellectual pro- 
cesses, but not belonging to the heavenly or eternal order. 
On the other hand is the " inner man," whose nature is 
different. About the inner man in the non-Christian, 
Paul is somewhat vague ; but it appears that the " reason " 
by which God is known to all men, and the " heart " upon 
which His law is written, partake of the nature of the 
invisible and eternal world.4 The non-Christian is, however, 
to Paul's mind an imperfect, immature specimen of Man. 
It is in the Christian that we must study human nature 
in its developed form. Here the inner man is definitely 
described as "spirit" (pneuma as distinct from psyche). 
Like " flesh," spirit is a continuum ; it is the form of being 
of God Himself and of the risen and glorified Christ, but 
it is also the -form of being of the believer's own " inner 
man." Not that " spirit " is to be considered as if it were, 
like "flesh," mere substance. It is essentially power, 
energy, and as such is "life-giving" ("quickening"). 
" Spirit " is therefore not properly a term of individual 
psychology. Every man, so far as he has attained to truly 
mature life ? partakes both of flesh and of spirit. 

The principle of individuality is the "organism" ("body.") 
This does not mean to Paul the structure of bone, flesh, 

4 II. Cor. iv. 16, cf. Rom. vii. 22-3 ; Rom. ii. 14-15, Col. i. 
21, ii. 1 8, Eph. iv. 18, Phil, iv. 7. 


and blood to which we give the name of body. It is the 
pure organic form which subsists through all changes of 
material particles. The physical organ which I possess to- 
day is different in all or most of its material particles from 
that which I possessed eight years ago. In so far as it has 
an organic identity and continuity it is my body none the 
less. Thus for Paul the identity of the " organism " or 
" body " was in nowise affected by any change in its sub- 
stance. The " flesh " might pass away, and ** splendour " 
or light-substance be substituted, and the organism remain 
intact and self-identical. Thus Paul's insistence on the 
resurrection of the " body " is meant to assert the continuity 
of individual identity, as distinguished from the persistence 
of some impalpable shade or " soul " which was not in any 
real sense the identical man. Paul could not have talked 
of " saving souls " ; it was the " emancipation of the 
body" that interested him, i.e. of the individual, self- 
identical, organic whole. The phrase in the Apostles' 
Creed, " the resurrection of the flesh," would have horrified 
him. He neither expected nor wished the " flesh " to rise 
again ; he wished the " body " to be emancipated from the 
bonds of the " flesh." 5 It is probably on this analogy that 
we are meant to interpret the "emancipation of the 
creation." It, too, has somehow a "body" which can 
be redeemed from decay and clothed with splendour in 
the eternal world. 6 

The metaphysical distinction of two planes of being 
does not precisely correspond to ethical distinctions. It is 

5 I Cor. iv. 35-54, ii. 12-iii. 3, Gal. v. 17, Rom. viii. 12-13, 
23, etc. I believe that the above is a fair description of Paul's 
* anthropology.* But he is not a systematic theologian, and he 
sometimes uses terms loosely. Sw/xa, ^v^j), Trvei/jua, all appear 
at times in senses approximating more closely to their popular 
or vulgar meaning than to the strict Pauline usage. 

6 Rom. viii. 21. 


often stated that Paul accepted a current view of his time, 
that spirit alone is good and matter essentially evil. He did 
not accept any such view. On the one hand there are 
" spiritual forces of wickedness " ; 7 and on the other hand 
what is wrong with the material world is not its moral 
evil, but its subjection to the futility of a perpetual flux of 
birth and decay. That subjection is traced not, as in some 
contemporary theories, to the sin of Adam, for whose sake 
the earth was believed to have been " cursed," but vaguely 
to the will of God, i.e. it is in the nature of things as they 
are, though not of necessity permanent. 8 

In man, however, the case is complicated.. By some 
means the " flesh " of mankind (which carries with it 
the psych^) has fallen under the dominion of sin, thus 
becoming not merely morally indifferent, though perish- 
able matter, but " flesh of sin." This Sin is a 
mysterious power, not native to man or to the material 
world, but intruding into human nature on its lower 
side* Paul speaks of it in personal terms : it lives, 
reigns, holds us in slavery ; it is condemned and 
overcome. Whether he was consciously personifying an 
abstraction, or whether Sin was for him really a personal 
power, like the Devil of popular mythology, is not clear. 
At all events it is not an inherent taint in matter, but rather 
one of the "spiritual forces of wickedness." 9 

How Sin came into human nature is a question which 
Paul does not answer very satisfactorily. He sometimes 
traces it to an historic transgression of a human ancestor 

7 EpL vi. 12, cf. Gal. IT. 3, 9, Col. ii. 8, 20 ; tie ' rulers of 
this age ' who * crucified tie Lord of glory ' (I Cor. ii. 8) are 
discarnate intelligences working behind the actions of men. 

Angels ' are in Paul generally powers hostile to men's salvation, 
Rom.viii.38, 1 Cor. vi. 3,ii.i o,II Cor.xii./, Gal. i. 8, Col. ii. 18. 

8 Rom. viii. 20. 

9 Rom. v. 12, 21, vi. 12, 14, 17-23, vii. 8-n, 20, viii. 3. 


in the remote past. This was the common account 
given in contemporary Judaism. * But in other passages 
he suggests a different origin. In the background of 
his world stand the " world-rulers " or " elemental spirits." 
They have some special relation to the material world, 
and it does not appear that in relation to it they are necessarily 
evil. But if man becomes subject to them, then he is fallen 
to a state of unnatural slavery. The process appears to be 
after this fashion : the reason of man, being a spark of the 
divine, knew God and read His law written on the heart > 
but instead of worshipping God and doing His will, it 
stooped to adore material forms, and thereby fell under the 
dominion of the elemental powers. The elevation of the 
material to the place of God led to the perversion of man's 
naturally right instincts. Reason itself became " reprobate " 
and the whole life of mankind was thrown into disorder. 11 
If the transmitted sin of Adam is the characteristically 
Jewish doctrine, the theory of elemental spirits starts rather 
from Greek ideas. Neither can satisfy us, though each has 
hints of truth : on the one hand, the solidarity of humanity 
and the incalculable effects of individual transgression ; on 
the other, the peril of exalting the physical and material to a 
dominance which is not in accord with man's real nature. 

What might have been the relations of flesh and spirit 
had not sin intervened is a question on which Paul does not 
speculate. Taking things as they are, he scans history 
and sees that everywhere the power of evil has degraded 
man from the high estate he should hold, making even the 
** inner man," the reason which knew God, the conscience 
which witnessed to His law, slave to the material part and 
sharer in its fate of decay and futility. In the " flesh " sin 
has its seat. Reason may bow to the " flesh " and thereby 
fall under the dominion of sin and decay, but its nature 

10 Rom. v. 12-21, cf. IV Ezra. iii. 21-22, vii. 11-12, 

11 Rom. i. 18-23, 28; cf. passages cited in note 7 above. 


remains alien from sin. " Flesh," on the other hand, has 
assimilated itself to the evil power, and the taint passes to 
the psychi or " soul " of which it is the organ, so that " the 
desires of the flesh and of the intellect " stand for the evil 
tendency in man. "The Flesh" therefore, in a moral 
sense, does not mean matter as evil in itself, but man's 
emotional and intellectual nature as perverted by sin and 
enslaved to material forces. 12 

It will be evident from this that " sin " is not for Paul 
identical with actual moral transgression of which the indi- 
vidual is fully conscious and for which he is fully responsible. 
That is the sense in which the word has been generally 
used by subsequent writers 5 but if it is taken in that 
sense, then Paul is inevitably misunderstood. The actual 
Greek word used (hamartia\ like its equivalent in the 
Hebrew of the Old Testament, originally meant " missing 
the mark," or as we might say, " going wrong." Now 
whatever subtleties may complicate the discussion of such 
questions as moral responsibility and degrees of merit, at 
least it is plain that there is something wrong with man- 
kind. There is a racial, a corporate, a social wrongness 
of which we are made in some sense partakers by the 
mere feet of our being born into human society* 
That is the meaning of "original sin," as the theo- 
logians call it It is not the figment of an inherited 
guilt > how could anything so individual as guilty responsi- 
bility be inherited ? It is a corporate wrongness in which 
we are involved by being men in this world. The 
purport of Paul's rather clumsy metaphysics is to show how 

Rom. vii. 14, 18, viii. 5-8, Gal. v, 13, 19-21, vi. 8, Col. ii. 
13, 1 8, Eph. ii. 3. It has to be added that in many passages 
Paul was ffap in an entirely non-moral sense as standing simply 
for the physical part of man, e.g. Rom. ii. 3, Gal. iv. 13, Col. i. 
22, etc. How easily the one sense passed into the other is shown 
by a passage like II Cor. z. 2-4. 


the problem of evil in man is more than the problem of a 
series of sinful acts, which of his own free will he can stop 
if he makes up his mind to it. To some minds this dis- 
tinction will seem artificial. They will agree with the 
child who refused to repeat the prayer " God make me a 
good girl," with the remark, " I wouldn't trouble God 
about a little thing like that : I can be good by myself if 
I want to." But a majority, perhaps, of those who take 
life seriously find that the trouble lies deeper. There is a 
deep-grained wrongness about human life as it is. The 
preoccupation with that wrongness as the primary interest 
of the religious life is certainly morbid ; but no matter how 
freely and fully we recognize the wonderful potentialities of 
that human nature which we share, it remains true that 
there is a flaw somewhere, which defies simple treatment. 
The monstrous development of the doctrine of "total de- 
pravity" and the reaction against it, have partly blinded us 
to the reality of what Paul called " sin in the flesh." That 
blindness has been partly connected with a fuller appreciation 
of individuality and individual responsibility than Paul had 
attained. But have we not placed an exaggerated emphasis 
upon individual responsibility ? And is not that partly 
why the whole idea of sin (in the sense in which evangelical 
theology has used the term) has seemed to be invalidated 
by the modern re-discovery of solidarity, and the recognition 
of the influence of heredity and social environment ? It 
would indeed be difficult to say definitely of any particular 
wrong act that its perpetrator was absolutely and exclu- 
sively responsible for it. When we have said that, it 
is often thought that the whole Christian doctrine of sin 
is disproved. It does not touch that doctrine as taught by 
Paul He thought of the "flesh," or lower nature of 
man, as a continuum in which we all partake ; and of that 
u flesh " as having acquired by some means an impulse 
towards what is wrong. We should set aside his termi- 


nology, and seek some other explanation of the fact ; but 
on the fact we must surely agree with Paul, that there is 
something common, something racial about sin in his sense 
of the term. It is a tendency transmitted by heredity and 
deepened by environment, and its issues, like its sources, 
are not individual merely, but racial. No one of us can 
disown his part in the complicated evils in which society 
is entangled. We are wrong, and we need to be put 
right. No casuistry explaining away the measure of in- 
dividual responsibility makes much difference here : the 
fact of wrongness remains. Our problem is Paul's problem. 
Indeed, with the modern emphasis on solidarity, and our 
rebelliousness against social evil in the world, the problem is 
pressing on us with a peculiar urgency. Perhaps, therefore, 
we may give ear afresh to a teacher out of that ancient 
imperial world when he sets before us his thoughts upon 
its solution. As we shall see, he finds the point of attack 
upon this gigantic force of wrong in the individual, though 
not in the individual as an isolated unit. 

For the moment, however, we are concerned to pursue 
the trail of corporate wrong. For it brings disastrous conse- 
quences which also are corporate as well as individual. 
Human history is a moral order, in which it is impossible 
to be wrong without incurring disaster. This disaster 
Paul calls, in traditional language, "The Wrath," or 
much more rarely, "The Wrath of God." It has 
been supposed that Paul thought of God as a vengeful 
despot, angry with men whom nevertheless He had Himself 
created with the liability to err, even if He did not create 
them to be damned for His greater glory. That is a mere 
caricature of Paul's view. There are, indeed, many 
indications in his use of language that " The Wrath of 
God" is not being thought of as a passion of anger 
in the mind of God. It is not without significance 
that there are no more than three or possibly four 


passages where the expression "The Wrath of God" 
(or " His Wrath ") appears at all, while the phrase " The 
Wrath " is constantly used in a curiously impersonal way 
Paul carefully avoids ever making God the subject of the 
verb " to be angry." Once he speaks of God as " applying 
the Wrath " a strange way of saying that God made His 
anger felt, if anger was thought of as a passion in the divine 
mind. It suggests rather a process directed or controlled 
by a person.^ Even in the passage which has about it most 
of the sterner colours of Pharisaic theology the "vessels of 
Wrath " are the objects of God's forbearance ; a statement 
which, if it does not rule out the idea that God is angry 
with the persons on whom at the same time He shows mercy, 
at least gives a startling paradox if Paul is supposed to have 
the thought of an angry God in mind. I 4 

Let us, then, consider the one passage where "The 
Wrath of God " is spoken of in more than an allusive 
way. "The Wrath of God is being revealed," he 
says to the Romans : it is to be seen at work in 
contemporary history. How, then ? In earthquake, fire 
and brimstone ? " God gave them up in the lusts of 
their own hearts to impurity " ; 4C God gave them up 
to disgraceful passions " 5 " God gave them up to their 
reprobate reason." " The Wrath of God," therefore, as 
seen in actual operation, consists in leaving sinful human 
nature to "stew in its own juice." *5 This is a suffi- 
ciently terrible conception, but if we believe, as Paul did, 
in any measure of human free will, what else is to happen 
if men choose steadfastly to ignore God ? Are they not 
self-condemned to the reaping of the harvest of their 

X 3 ('H) 'op??. (TOV) Qeov Rom. i. 1 8, CoL iiL 6, Eph. v. 6; 
TJ opyrj Rom. iii. J, Y. 9, ix. 22 (possibly with avro/), rii. 19, 
xiil. 5, I Thess. i. 10, ii. 16 ; opyji Rom. ii. 5, 8, ir. 15, ix. 22 
(ffOKtvrj pyrjg), Eph. ii. 3, I Thess. v. 9. 

*4 Rom. he. 22-23 *5 Rom. i. 18-32, xi* 8-10. 


sinful deeds, which is " a reprobate reason " a disordered 
moral being, where the very instincts that should have led 
to good are perverted to the service of wrong ? " If the 
light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness ! " 
And this " reprobation," be it observed, is the consequence 
of the rejection of that knowledge of God which is native 
to man. "The Wrath," then, is revealed before our 
eyes as the increasing horror of sin working out its hideous 
kw of cause and effect. "The judgment" which over- 
takes sin is the growing perversion of the whole moral 
atmosphere of human society, which cannot but affect 
to a greater or less degree every individual born into 
it Meanwhile, the characteristic personal activity of 
God is not wrath but "kindness," "long-suffering," 
rooted in His love and ready to display itself in 
"grace."** That is why "The Wrath" is not the 
last word of the moral order for Paul. The " wages of sin " 
is real and terrible ; it is moral decay and death for the race. 
But that is not a complete account of the moral universe. 
" God justifies the ungodly." *7 To this matter we shall 
presently turn. The intention of this chapter is to set forth 
the problem of sin as Paul faced it, and to suggest how close 
to reality he was when he placed his finger on the point 
that sin is a racial and social fact, in which every 
individual is implicated, and that if the moral order is 
nothing more than a law of retribution, there is nothing 
before sinful man but greater sin and moral disaster.^ &: 
The whole of this is only preparatory to a decisive 
declaration of the way out of apparently desperate conditions. 
Even so, does it give too gloomy a view ? We like to think 
that humanity left to itself would grow better. But would 
it ? Is it not true that whole nations and societies of men 
have sunk lower and lower out of sheer inner rottenness, 

rf Rom.ii. 22-24, S- 4> *i. 32. 17 Rom. iv. 5,v. 6, vi. 23. 
* See N. Micklem, The Of en Light (C.R.S.) ch. iii. 


often bringing other peoples down with them in their fell, 
since there is a solidarity of mankind ? And is such a future 
for our species as the ghastly imaginings of Mr. Wells's 
" Time Machine " wholly inconceivable ? But Jesus 
Christ, we are told, whom Paul professed to follow, took 
no such gloomy view of human nature and its prospects. 
It may be granted at once that there is a difference of 
emphasis between the Master and His disciple. There was 
a good reason for this, Jesus worked among the Jews, 
where the dominant theology took a gloomy enough view 
of the nature of all men except a very few. It was there- 
fore His first and chief care to give hope to those who seemed 
hopeless and to assure them of the glorious possibilities open 
to them in the love of the Father in heaven. Paul worked 
among the pagans, where real downright evil was readily 
condoned and glozed over, and its inevitable consequences 
explained away, while none the less the rottenness of sin 
was eating into the heart of that corrupt civilization, despite 
all the efforts of moralists and legislators. " The Wrath " 
that follows sin was actually being revealed ; and it was 
part of Paul's task to open the eyes of the pagan world to 
it, that they might be willing to seek the better way. But 
we cannot quote Jesus against Paul as giving an easy and 
cheerfully optimistic view of the actual state of human 
society. On the contrary, there is enough in His teaching 
to show that He too saw the society of His day " rushing 
down a steep place into the sea,'* with no hope of its redemp- 
tion save in the " Sovereignty of God." J 9 Therein Paul 
was His true interpreter to the wider world. 

*9,Mt.v.i3==LLxiv. 34, cf. MLix. 
50, ML iii. 29, cf. Mt. xii. 32=LL xii. 10, ML viii. 35, cf. 
Mt. x. 39=LL xvii. 33, Mt. xxiii. 34-36=!^. xi. 49^51, Mt. xL 
21 24~LL x. 13-15, LL xiii. 1-9, etc. The principle running 
through all such sayings is that of the disastrous consequences 
of wrong choice in a moral universe : cf. Gal. vi. 7. On the other 
hand, the characteristic personal activity of God is illustrated in 
the 'patient love of the Shepherd and the Father of the ProdigaL 



WE have now to approach that region of our subject where 
Paul's contribution is perhaps most original and charac- 
teristic, and where at the same time it is most cumbered with 
temporary elements : his treatment of the idea of Law. 
The enormous importance which attached to that idea in 
contemporary Judaism, and particularly in the Pharisaic 
branch of it to which Paul belonged, has already been 
indicated. Paul's attitude to the historic Law of Moses is 
curiously contradictory on the surface. On the one hand 
it reflects for him that inexorable moral order which is in 
the nature of things. The nature of things is the will of 
God, and the law which reflects it must be of God, and there- 
fore holy, spiritual, just and good.* On the other hand 
he detests this law as the supreme instrument of slavery (why, 
we shall see presently). It is not unfair to regard this 
deep paradox in his thought as the penalty of a false up- 
bringing, which had implanted almost a morbid idfe fixe 
that he never threw off. His training and prepossessions 
made it for ever impossible for him to take a detached view 
of the Law in which he had been taught to see the eternal 
will of God. He might reasonably have attacked its mixing 
upon equal terms of ritual trivialities and awful moral 
principles. He did not do so. His training made it 
impossible. The Law was a vast and indivisible system 

x Rom. vii. 12, 14. 



which must somehow be accounted for as a whole. His 
entire mental background made things peculiarly hard for 
him at this point. But it was not without advantage that 
Christian thought was thus led to face with the utmost 
definition the conflict which underlay the attack that 
Jesus Christ had made upon the organized religion of 
His day. 

The attitude of Jesus to the Jewish Law was singularly 
free and unembarrassed. He made full use of it as an im- 
pressive statement of high ethical ideals* Even its ritual 
practices He treated with perfect tolerance where they did 
not conflict with fundamental moral obligations. From 
Pharisaic formalism He appealed to the relative simplicity 
of the venerable written law. But again from the written 
law itself He appealed to the basic rights and duties of 
humanity : the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the 
Sabbath \ the Law might permit the dissolution of marriage, 
but there was something more deeply rooted in the nature 
of things which forbade it ; the lex talionis^ the centra} 
principle of legal justice, must go overboard in the interests 
of the holy impulse to love your neighbour not merely as 
yourself, but as God has loved you. Such free-handed 
dealing meant that the whole notion of morality as a code 
of rules with sanctions of reward and punishment was 
abandoned. But the average Christian was slow to see 
this implication. For instance, Jesus had taken fasting 
out of the class of meritorious acts, and given it a place only 
as the fitting and spontaneous expression of certain spiritual 
states. This is what an early authoritative catechism of the 
Church made of His teaching : " Let not your fasts be 
with the hypocrites, for they fast on Monday and Thursday ; 
ye therefore shall fast on Wednesday and Friday." a It 
sounds ludicrous, but we may ask, Was it not on some very 

Mk. ii. 18-20, Mt. vi. 16-18; Teaching of the Twelve 
dpostles, viii, i. 


similar principle that the Church did actually carry through 
its reconstruction of " religious observance " ? And a 
Church which so perverted Christ's treatment of the ritual 
law proved itself almost equally incapable of understanding 
His drastic revisio of the moral law. 

It was therefore of the utmost importance that one 
who knew from the inside the system which Jesus 
attacked should, through being compelled to confront 
his own exaggerated legalism with His Master's inde- 
pendence, point the way to the more fundamental impli- 
cations of what Jesus had done. Paul found himself 
driven to reconsider, not this precept or that, but the 
whole nature of law as such ; and it is a mark of his real 
greatness that he did so on the basis, not of theory merely, 
but of experience. In its elements, moreover, the experience 
on which he founded was wider than that of a Pharisaic 
Jew. For it is not of any peculiarly Jewish experience that 
he speaks. For himself, no doubt, whether as Jew or as 
Christian, the so-called Law of Moses was absolute law. 
Within the sphere of law there was nothing higher or more 
perfect. Yet the identical principle appeared also among the 
pagans. The pagan sense of right and wrong was God's 
law written on the heart the same law as that delivered on 
Sinai, Paul would have said, though more doubtfully, 
obscurely, and imperfectly revealed. He had sympathy 
enough to perceive that the Stoic too must fell upon this 
problem of a law which he could not but acknowledge as 
divine, which yet condemned him without giving him 
strength to do better. There are passages in Stoic writers 
tinged with a melancholy which recalls the moving trans- 
cript from Paul's experience in the seventh chapter of his 
Epistle to the Romans. It is at bottom a human problem, 
and not a specifically Jewish one, that he is facing, but his 
own bitter experience in Pharisaic Judaism lent a cutting 
edge to his analysis. 


The education of the youthful Paul in his Jewish home at 
Tarsus must have been a very rigorous one. We may 
compare it with the strictest kind of Puritan training which 
in this country, and still more perhaps in Scotland and Wales, 
moulded the lives of a former generation. He was early 
drilled into a very high standard of personal purity and 
probity. As he grew up he found that his food and 
clothes, the way he washed his hands, the way he had his 
hair cut, and all the simplest operations of a boy's daily life 
were rigidly prescribed,3 and were so distinct from those of 
other Tarsian boys that he was bound to ask, Why ? He 
was told, Because the God of our fathers has commanded 
it in His law, as He has also commanded us not to kill or 
steal ; and if we do otherwise, the wrath of God will come 
upon us. So he came to think of this God as very strong 
and holy, but also very stern and jealous. He was a merci- 
ful God too, but His mercy was chiefly shown in the in estim- 
able gift of the Law to Israel, His darling people. 4 Through 
that gift they knew, and only they, the eternal rule of life 
by which alone happiness could be attained. " See, I set 
before you this day a blessing and a curse " : so the young 
Paul learned to recite out of Deuteronomy. To know the 
Law and keep it in its entirety was the assured way to perfect 
blessedness. To infringe the least of its precepts was to 
bring down the vengeance of a justly incensed God, "an eye 
for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." Such was the eternal 

3 Deut. :riv. 3-21, nii. 1112, Lev. xir. 27, Mt. vii. 3-4* 

4 See especially the saying of Rabbi Akiba (died 135 A.D.) 
in Pirke Aboth, iii. 19 :" Beloved are Israel, in that to them was 
given the precious instrument wherewith the world was created. 
Greater love was it that it was known to them that there was 
given to them the precious instrument wherewith the world was 
created, as it is said, * For a good doctrine I have given you ; for- 
sake not my Torah (Law)'" (translation by Herford). Cf. 
Psalm cilvii. 19-20, czk. 89-96, kxviii. 1-7, and Rabbinic 
passages cited by Weber, of. tit. pp. 18-25. 


justice, which God must vindicate, because He was God.5 
And the Law itself in all its precepts was a pattern for 
human life framed upon this eternal justice, with its root 
principle of reciprocity or retribution. This Law had been 
given, in the inscrutable providence of God, to His chosen 
people as the supreme mark of His favour. 

So Paul was taught at home ; and as he looked upon the 
Greek boys he passed in the street, he was proud to think 
that he had a secret denied to them all he knew the Law 
Its possession undoubtedly brought to an earnest-minded 
Jew a real moral elevation. Such writings as the hundred- 
and-nineteenth Psalm show with what enthusiasm a pious 
Jew could contemplate this great gift of God to his race. 
4S> Oh, how I love Thy law ! It is my meditation all the day." 
We may think of Paul as sharing in such emotions in his 
study of the Law, especially from the time when, aiming 
at the Rabbinate, he devoted himself wholly to it* Out of 
this concentration upon the Law grew on the one side an 
intense national pride, on the other an overwhelming sense 
of the moral order with its awful principle of retribution. 
Both were affronted by the discovery in Palestine, when he 
went there, of those renegade Jews the Nazarenes, whose 
leader had set himself up against the Law and denounced 
its authorized interpreters, and had at last been cast out of 
the commonwealth of Israel for blasphemy against God's 
Temple and His Holy Name. It was a grim enthusiasm 
for the moral order which made Paul a persecutor, as it has 

5 " According to the Jewish mind, requital was deeply ingrained 
in the whole scheme of things. Exceptions there might be, but 
they were more apparent than real. The most solemn and the 
most true adage in the world was * measure for measure.* * All 
measures shall pass away, but measure for measure shall never 
pass away.' The Rabbinic uses of the word Middah, Measure, 
Attribute, Quality, form a chapter in themselves*" C. G, 
Montefiore in Beginnings of Christianity, ed. Jackson & Lake, 



made many another. " Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou 
Me ? " Paul might have thought he had his answer ready : 
"Because the moral order must be vindicated and the 
law-breaker punished.'* Yet when the question was 
actually pressed home he found he had no answer. 

For while outwardly Paul was the proud, irreproachable 
champion of the Law, inward struggles plunged his soul in 
darkness and confusion. The weakness of his human 
nature had revealed itself in conflict with the absolute claims 
of the moral law. The sense of impotence and despair 
that took hold upon him is reflected in one of the most 
moving passages of his writings, the seventh chapter of the 
Epistle to the Romans. It is not without significance that 
the example he there uses to illustrate his point is the one 
commandment in the Decalogue which is concerned with 
thought and not with overt word or act. " Thou shalt 
not covet," said the Law. We may recall that covetous- 
ness is noted in the Gospels as a special snare of the 
pious Pharisee. From his Pharisaic days Paul was well 
aware that morality must cover the inner life of feeling, 
thought, motive, and desire. " He is not a Jew who is such 
only outwardly " 6 is a sentence he might have written at 
any time in his life. Now, it appears, he found that even 
though he might conform his outward actions to the require- 
ments of the Law he could not control his thoughts and 
desires. But the Law was a single whole ; to break one 
precept was to renounce all. 7 He was as honest and strict 
with himself as he was severe with others, and he fell under 
the scourge of self-condemnation. He loved the Law,. 
consented to it as good, rejoiced in it " after the inner man," 
as he says, but he could not keep it " The good I would, 

Rom. ii. 28-29. 

7 Gal. iii. lo-ii. Several Rabbinic sayings to this effect 
are quoted in Wetstein's note on Ja. ii. 10, which is an early and 
unambiguous statement of the principle. 


I do not, and the evil I would not, that I do . . when I 
would do good, evil is present with me." 

It is at this point that Paul's experience as a Pharisee 
falls in with the common experience of men. It was 
not a Jew who wrote " Video mellora proboque^ deteriora 
sequor" The moral incompetence of human nature 
in the presence of an acknowledged ideal is no private 
discovery. A man may perceive the ideal clearly, and 
contemplate it with a keen aesthetic delight, and yet 
desires and impulses which contradict it may be so much 
more real to him that his actual conduct is a perpetual denial 
of the ideal. This divided state of the personality is a state 
of miserable impotence, in which the freedom of the will 
is a mere illusion. " The freedom of the will," writes a 
modern psychologist, 8 "may be a doctrine which holds true 
of the healthy, and indeed the exercise of will and determina- 
tion is the normal way in which to summon the resources of 
power ; but the doctrine that the will alone is the way to 
power is a most woebegone theory for the relief of the 
morally sick and who of us is whole ? Freedom to 
choose ? Yes ! But what if, when we choose, we have 
no power to perform ? We open the sluice-gates, but the 
channels are dry ; we pull the lever, but nothing happens ; 
we try by our will to summon up our strength, but no strength 
comes." , No wonder Paul described such a condition as 
a state of slavery. 

Most of us know something about this condition, though 
few of us are reduced to the depths of despair to which 
Paul came. We pacify a not very exacting con- 
science with a rough approximation. But the ques- 
tion may be raised, whether this half-conscious tolerance 
of a real though unacknowledged rift between ideal and 
practice is not a form of "suppressed complex" which 
works more injury than we commonly imagine. Worse 

* J. A. Hadfield, in The Spirit (ed. B. H. Streeter), p. 87, 


certainly is the state of the person who is sentimental enough 
to think that to admire what is noble is a sufficient sub- 
stitute for doing it. Worst of all is the actual hypocrisy 
of pretending to ourselves that by great rigour in practices 
we find easy we can tip the balance even, and 

" Compound for sins that we're inclined to 
By damning those we have no mind to." 

Such hypocrisy is often a form of instinctive self-protection, 
and it is most common where moral ideals have been reduced 
to the most precise and comprehensive rules of life. That 
is probably why the Puritan of literature is so often a hypo- 
crite, and likewise the Pharisee of the Gospels, whose 
religion was discipline pressed to an even more logical 
extreme. Paul was not that kind of Pharisee. He was 
earnest, clear-sighted, and absolutely honest with himself. 
He could find no way out of the impasse. He could not 
keep the Law, especially in its most inward and spiritual 
precepts, which sought to rule the thoughts and motives. 
But law must be upheld. It was in the nature of things, 
and God must needs vindicate it. Where then was any 
door of hope for Paul the sinner ? 

We now come to the turning-point in Paul's careen He 
set out for Damascus, the fierce avenger of an outraged Law 5 
but in his heart he felt that the Law had broken him, and 
hope was almost gone. "Who will rescue me from the 
clutch of' this dead body ? " is his bitter cry. . . . Time 
passes, and we meet a new Paul. The terror of the Law 
has passed from his soul, with all the miserable sense of moral 
impotence : " There is now no condemnation " ; "I can 
do anything in Him who gives me strength." And he has 
now no further thought of inflicting the terrors of the Law 
upon others. He who once "breathed out threatenings 
and slaughter " is now content if he may bear his share of 
the sufferings by which others may be saved : " I am glad of 


my sufferings for you ; I am making up in my own flesh 
the deficit of Christ's sufferings for His Body, which is the 
Community " ; " I am crucified with Christ." 9 What we 
observe in all this is that the preoccupation with law, and 
more precisely with its principle of retribution, has slipped 
away ; and in the freedom and peace of mind that ensues 
Paul has gained the " heart at leisure from itself" and open 
to all tides of human sympathy. He has discovered some 
new secret of life. What is it ? 

" God who said * Light shall flash out of darkness * 
flashed upon our hearts and enlightened us with a knowledge 
of the splendour of God in the face of Christ" I0 It was a 
new perception of God that had come to Paul. The God 
of Pharisaism was like the God of the Deists, He stood 
aloof from the world He had made, and let law take its 
course. He did not here and now deal with individual 
sinful men, Paul lets us see how new and wonderful was 
the experience, when God "flashed on his heart" in personal 
dealing with him. He had not suspected that God was 
like that His theological studies had told him that God 
was loving and merciful ; but he had thought this love and 
mercy were expressed once and for all in the arrangements 
He had made for Israel's blessedness * 4 the plan of salvation." 
It was a new thing to be assured by an inward experience 
admitting of no further question that God loved him, and 
that the eternal mercy was a Father's free forgiveness of His 
erring child. This was the experience that Christ had 
brought him : he had seen the splendour of God's own love 
in the face of " the Son of God, who loved me and gave Him- 
self for me." Il What knowledge of Jesus Christ and His 
teaching lay behind the flash of enlightenment it is now im- 
possible for us to say ; but it is clear that the God whom Paul 
met was the ** Father " of Jesus' own Gospel parables, the 

9 Rom. viii. 1-2, Phil. iv. 13, Col. i. 24, Gal. ii. 19, vi. 14. 

10 II Cor. iv. 6. " Gal. 2. 19-20. 


"Shepherd" who goes after the one sheep until He finds it 
It was the God, in fact, whom the whole of the life of Jesus 
set forth, to the astonishment of those among whom He 
moved. Living still. He brought God to men in the same 
unmistakable way. The divine love that through Jesus 
had found Zacchaeus the publican had now through the 
risen Jesus found Paul the Pharisee. Henceforward 
the central facts of life for Paul were that while he was yet 
a sinner God had found and forgiven him, and that this was 
the work of Jesus Christ in whose love the love of God , 
had become plain. About those two foci in experience his 
theology revolves, 12 

In order to establish against those who impugned it the 
validity of his new experience of God, Paul set out to dis- 
cover in what were to him and to his critics indisputable 
facts, the proof of his assertion. The interest of these 
discussions for us is limited to the extent to which they 
illuminate on various sides the new conception of God and 
His dealings which had come to Paul in experience. His 
argument comes to this, that while the Law had a pkce of 
its own in the providential order, it never did and never 
could exhaust the whole truth about God and man. Law 
worked wholly within the sphere of reciprocity or recom- 
pense. But history showed that such reciprocity was at 
least very irregular and incomplete in its operation. In the 
first place, his critics must grant that in God's dealings with 
the ancestors of the " chosen people " there was an element 
of free choice on God's part, altogether out of relation to 
the deserts of the objects of that choice. Abraham was 
called even before he had taken upon him the rite of 
circumcision. Jacob was loved by God, as the Scripture 
showed, before he had done either good or ill. That 
indicated a freedom of choice on God's part which was 

Rom. v. 6-8, viii. 35-39, ^ Cor. r * H- 1 ?* 18-19, Col. i. 
13-15, Eph. i. 4-7, ii. 4-10, iii. 18-19, v. 1-2, 


incompatible with the strict working of law, 13 Such freedom 
of choice, however, raises a new difficulty the case of the 
"rejects." They are left in sin, and must on the principles 
of law pay the inexorable penalty of sin in ever greater 
and greater sin until complete moral disaster and death is 
the result. But what actually happens ? " What if God, 
with all His will to exhibit His wrath and make known 
His power, bore very patiently with * vessels of wrath,' fit 
only for destruction ? " I4 There is a flaw, that is, in the 
working of the system of recompense. <c In this, O Lord," 
exclaims a contemporary Pharisaic writer, "shall Thy 
righteousness and goodness be declared, if Thou wilt com- 
passionate them that have no wealth of good works." I5 
The writer of these words is dearly very uncertain 
whether God's compassion does actually reach so far. 
Paul, like most Pharisees, is sure that in all ages a 
remnant at least has found unmerited mercy of God, 
even though His normal principle was retribution. In 
other words, forgiveness is, and always has been, a fact 
verifiable in the experience of some men at least. But it 
is wholly inconsistent with the law of retribution. " Do 
you make light," Paul wrote, "of the wealth of His 
kindness and tolerance and patience ? Do you not know 
that the kindness of God is trying to lead you to 
repentance ? " l6 In practice, that is to say, the Law as an 
absolute system of recompense has wrecked itself upon the 
character of God as loving and pitiful But this very fact 
that God has passed over, or ** winked at," sin in spite of 

*3 Gal. iii. 7-22, iv. 21-31, Rom. iv., ix. 7-13. 

T 4 Rom. ix. 22. 

J 5 IV Ezra (II Esdras) viii. 31-36, but contrast 37-62; cf. 
id. vii. 4.7-61, viii. 1-3, ix. 15, 21-22, x. 10 ; vii. 68, 133. The 
date is about A.D. 100 ; but surely it was out of some such position 
as this that Paul advanced into Christianity. 

16 Rom. ii. 4. 


the Law, indicates the logical necessity for some different 
principle to be disclosed. 17 

Next, and arguing still from facts which would be 
admitted by his Pharisaic opponents to facts which they 
were attempting to deny, Paul showed that within the Jewish 
system itself a principle different from the legal principle 
was to be found. This seems so obvious to us, to whom 
the prophetic element is the heart of the Old Testament, 
as hardly to need labouring. But to the Pharisees the Law 
was the foundation of all, the prophets merely commentary. 
In effect, Paul challenged them to interpret the Law by the 
prophets, and to find, even in the books of the Law itself, 
statements suggesting a personal relation to God over and 
abo\*e the merely legal relation to Him as governor of the 
universe. In effect he says to his critics, "You cannot 
find a place for these sayings : / can/* And so he shows 
that the Christian revelation of God is the fulfilment of a 
logical necessity in the heart of the old religion. 18 

But further, the system of legal retribution was fitted, 
Paul argued, to exhibit God's wrath, but not, in the full 
sense, His righteousness* That is a startling statement 
addressed to any Jewish public of the first century or for 
that matter to the bulk of " Christian " opinion to-day. 
Yet it was a thought not unfamiliar to the prophets, 
that God's righteousness is shown in making His people 
righteous. 19 God must show Himself, says Paul, at once 
"just and justifier." 20 For all the scholastic language^ 

*7 Rom. iii. 25, cf. Ac- xvii. 30. 

18 Rom. x., iv. 3-8, Gal. iii. 11-12, 1 Cor. r. 4, c II Cor* U 

19 See especially Is. xfr. 8-25, Iv. 6-13, Ivi. I, Ixi. 10-11, 
Jer. xxiiL 5-6, xxxiii. 15-16, cf. Dan. ix. 16. The idea is sug- 
gested, but scarcely adopted, in IV Ezra viii. 36. 

2 Rom. iii. 26, cf. i. 16-17, with 1 8 sqq., setting the problem 
which is solved in iii. 21 sqq. 


there is here a very vital truth : that righteousness, or justice, 
is a bigger thing than mere reciprocity. 21 It is the point which 
Jesus Christ made when He drily observed that a man's field 
gets sun and rain whether he has deserved these good things 
or not, and when He likened God to an employer so lost 
to all sense of justice as to pay a day's wage for an hour's 
work. 22 God must, by an inner necessity of His nature, 
do good to men : His " property is to have mercy and to 
forgive." But within the sphere of law there is no place 
for forgiveness. If righteousness or justice is retribution, 
as law assumes, then forgiveness is unrighteous. Once 
more there is a logical necessity for the revektion of 
something other than law. 

The real dilemma, therefore, which Paul places before 
his opponents is this : If you are once agreed that the ethical 
is the basis of all relation of God to man, then you are bound 
to deal with the moral kw of retribution. It appears to be 
the very foundation of morality, and yet it conflicts with the 
religious instinct which says, " God is not like that." Until 
you can clear scores with the principle of retribution, you 
will be haunted by it in all your attempts to give play to 
the grace of God. As we have seen, some of Paul's Jewish 
compatriots, even of his fellow-Pharisees, found themselves 
able in some measure to hold to the legal principle and 
yet to find a " little door '* for the grace of God. But if 
you are taking morality seriously, this position cannot be 
stable, and indeed Christianity itself, foiling to understand 
or follow Paul, has given proof how if you persist in identify- 
ing righteousness with retributive justice, and then insist 
that God must be righteous or just before He is merciful, 
you cannot let the character of God have that effective 
power in the religious and moral life which belongs to it. 
Yet law serves a purpose. After all, the moral order of 

21 See Norman Robinso v n, Christian Justice, in this series. 
Mt. v. 45, xi, 1-16* 


retribution which it embodies is a real fact, though it is not 
the only relevant fact, nor the final and decisive fact. If 
Paul had worked with the idea of development or " evolu- 
tion," he might have explained the place of law as a necessary 
stage in that development. Indeed he comes very near to 
doing so. " The Law/* he says, " was our * pedagogue,' 
until Christ should come." Those words have been inter- 
preted as though they described the Law as a preparatory 
education, continued at a higher stage by Christ That, 
however, is not quite what Paul meant. The " pedagogue " 
in Greek society was not a " schoolmaster." He did not 
give lessons (at least that was not his natural function). He 
was a slave who accompanied a boy to school, and both 
waited upon him and also exercised a supervision which 
interfered with the boy's freedom of action. He is, in fact, a 
figure in the little allegory which Paul gives us to illustrate 
the position of the People of God before Christ came. There 
was a boy left heir to a great estate. He was a minor, and 
so must have guardians and trustees. He was as helpless 
in their hands as if he had been a slave. He must live on 
the allowance they gave him, and follow their wishes from 
day to day. They gave him a " pedagogue " to keep him 
out of mischief. He could not please himself, or realize 
his own purposes and ambitions. Yet all the time he was 
the heir 5 the estate was his and no one else's. Just so the 
People of God, the Divine Commonwealth, was cramped 
and fettered by ignorance and evil times. It remained in 
uneasy expectation of one day coming into active existence* 
At last the heir came of age : guardians and trustees 
abdicated their powers, and the grown man possessed in full 
realization all that was his. So now the fettered life of 
the Divine Commonwealth bursts its bonds and comes into 
active existence. 

The Law therefore appears as a necessary but transi- 
tory stage of discipline. It was not fundamental to God's 


dealings with His sons. In the same passage Paul points 
out, in his scholastic fashion, that historically the Law came 
four hundred years after the " promise " had been given to 
" faithful Abraham " ; and the " testament " by which 
God devised His blessing upon Abraham could not be 
reversed by a codicil added four hundred years later ! *3 In 
other words, the intervention of law was not a reversal of 
God's original and eternal purpose of pure love and grace 
towards men ; it only subserved that purpose, while it 
seemed to contradict it, just as the presence of the " peda- 
gogue " might seem to the high-spirited young heir quite 
contrary to the rights secured to him by his father's will. 
How then did the Law subserve the purpose realized in 
Christ ? Paulas answer is so startling that his commentators 
have been reluctant to take his words in their plain mean- 
ing. " The Law," he says, " came in, by a side wind, in 
order that there might be more transgression ! " *4 If Paul 
often talked like that, we can understand how he shocked 
the good folk at Jerusalem, Jews and Christians alike ! 
Yet there is no great difficulty in resolving the paradox. 
The Law came in, not to increase " sin," of course, but to 
increase transgression. We have seen that for Paul ** sin " 
is a state of the Race, in which things have gone wrong, 
quite apart from any consideration of a conscious or deliberate 
wrongdoing on the part of any individual. " Before law 
came, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed where 
there is no law." *5 The knowledge of the moral law con* 
fronts the sinful state with a rule of goodness, and by the 
contrast brings home the wrong to the conscience as guilt. 
An examination of the seventh chapter of Romans makes 
this dear. We have already treated that chapter as an 
index to Paul's state of mind just before his conversion. 
But the passage is ideal biography rather than a strict tran- 

3 3 Gal. iii. ij-iv. 7. *4 Rom. v. 20, cf. Gal. Si. 19. 

*5 Rom- r. 1-1+. 


script " from the life." It starts with the description of an 
" age of innocence," which for the individual as for the 
race is an inference of reason or a figment of the imagination 
rather than strict history. There never was a time when 
Paul, or when the human race, was self-conscious without 
also being in some rudimentary way conscious of moral 
obligation. Yet by comparison with later stages we may 
use as a working concept the notion of an " age of innocence." 
By that is meant, not that one did no wrong, but that one 
had no sense of any contrast between what one actually 
did and what one ought to have done. " Once I lived my 
own life, without any law," Paul puts it. But while that 
stage remained there was no chance of better things. The 
establishment of a clear distinction between right and wrong 
was essential. Yet it is probably true that in every normal 
case this distinction emerged in conscience as the sense of 
having done wrong, the sense of guilt or shame, essentially 
humiliating and painful. "Law came to life and I 
died," Then follows the phase of struggle and defeat, with 
which we have already dealt. 

It is necessary here to distinguish between two counts 
which Paul brings against law. He found that the 
knowledge that a thing was wrong provoked him to 
seek it, so that to that degree law actually increased 
u sin" The fact is sufficiently attested in proverbial 
lore " stolen fruits are pleasant ! " to stand as a wide- 
spread experience. But it is not so important or perhaps 
so universal as Paul seems to have thought ; or at least it is 
scarcely so important universally as it appears to have been 
for him. In any case it rather obscures his main point, which 
is this : Every individual of the human race is so entangled 
in the general * c wrongness " that he has no power, left to 
himself, to avoid committing constantly acts which, whether 
he knows it or not, add to the sum of the wrong. To know- 
that these acts arc wrong does not prevent him from doing 



them, for ** the law is weak through the flesh " ; ** but it 
does imprint upon his conscience in the indelible characters 
of shame and guilt the contrast of good and evil. It brings 
u sin " home, from being a general state of the human race, 
to be a conscious burden upon the mind of the individual. 
It is no longer "sin " merely ; it is " transgression." 

We may compare the condition which Aristotle describes as 
tk incontinence/' 2 7 the essence of which is that the individual 
now knows, as he did not at a lower stage, that the things 
he is doing are wrong, and yet cannot keep himself from 
them* Aristotle makes this state the natural approach 
to the next higher, that of u continence," in which the 
things known to be wrong are through struggle and effort 
gradually discarded. Similarly, Paul sees that it is a great 
advance to have discovered sin in one's own heart as guilt. 
Only the man who is conscious of his guilt can be saved 
from the sin of which he is guilty. Only as the individual 
acknowledges such guilt can the racial wrongness be suc- 
cessfully attacked. In this sense, the function of law as 
" increasing guilt " can be regarded as part of a beneficent 
divine plan. But only if there is something else to follow. 
Otherwise we may give up all hope. Paul's charge against 
the Judaism in which he was brought up was that its 
view of the world went no further than the merely legal 
stage. Perhaps his statement of the case was sometimes 
too sweeping. Surely he would have admitted that at all 
times it was possible even within Judaism for men to 
transcend the purely legal attitude, and that as a matter 
of fact many saints of the old order had done so. 
This is, indeed, implied in his references to Elijah's 
Seven Thousand and Isaiah's Remnant. But in the 
main the highest moralists of his time did actually 
see no further than a system which attempted to build 

^ Rom. viii. 3, cf. IV* Ezra iii. 20-22. 

*7 'AKpavia : see Nlcomackean Ethics, VII. 1*1 0. 


the moral life of man exclusively upon that principle of 
reciprocity which they discerned in the nature of things, 
and allowed no real place for a fresh, direct, personal act of 
the loving, gracious God whom yet they professed to worship. 
Paul held that this God had indeed framed a universe in 
which the principle of retribution was at work : for he 
never denied that the Law largely answered to real facts, 
and certainly he never doubted that evil is ultimately 
disastrous and good ultimately blessed. The conception 
of a right which should be defeated at the end of the day 
did not dawn upon his mind : that was left for Mr. Bertrand 
Russell But this whole universe, with all its complex 
reactions, he held to have been constituted by God to the 
end that through it man might rise to a higher order, that 
of the " sons of God." At that point the " pedagogue " 
must step aside, and God's heir claim his freedom. 


"WHAT the law could not do, because it was powerless 
through our lower nature, that God did, by sending His 
own Son." i From what has already been said it should 
be clear that the problem before Paul was not * How can a 
just God forgive sin ? ' but * Granted that God is by His 
nature both "just and justifier," i.e. that because He is 
righteous He must forgive sin and impart righteousness, 
how is that righteousness to be made available for man ? * 
It is therefore not a problem of the adjustment of abstract 
principles of justice and mercy, but of the relations of God 
and man on the personal plane. Man must discover him- 
self as a son of God. With this in view, " When the full 
time had arrived, God sent out His Son, born of a woman, 
born in subjection to law, in order that He might emancipate 
those who were subject to law, i.e. that we might receive 
adoption into sonship." 3 

It is not here proposed to attempt any discussion in detail 
of what is called the " Christology " of Paul. It is a highly 
speculative structure of thought, making use of a difficult 
philosophical vocabulary. As a philosophy it is compounded 
of various elements, not easily disentangled. First, already 
in pre-Christian times there was a highly elaborated body 
of Jewish doctrine concerning the Messiah. Implying 
at one time no more than an ideal Hebrew prince of 

1 Rom. viii. 3. * Gal. iv. 45. 


the dynasty of David, the conception had attracted to itsel 
some of the most mystical elements in Jewish religious 
thought. At the beginning of the Christian era the 
Messiah was widely thought of as an eternal Being, called 
" The Son of Man," or " The Man," as though He were the 
type or representative of humanity, abiding with God from 
all eternity, partly revealed in vision and mystical experience 
to saints of all ages, such as Enoch and Ezra, but des- 
tined "in the fulness of time" to be openly mani- 
fested for the consummation of human history.3 It may 
now be taken as certain that Jesus believed Himself to 
be Messiah, and shaped His life and went to His death in 
that conviction. The only question is to what extent He 
shared various forms of contemporary belief about the 
Messiah, and in what ways He re-shaped the idea. It 
seems at least highly probable that He was the first to link 
the thought of the Messiah with that of the ideal " Servant 
of Jehovah " in the prophecies of the " Second Isaiah " 
the Servant who would suffer and die that others might 
know God. Without further discussion, it will be plain 
that Paul was from the outset within the sphere of Messianic 
ideas, both in their traditional form in Pharisaic Judaism, 
and in the form in which from the life and teaching of Jesus 
they had passed into early Christian circles. 

Further, Messianic beliefs had already, to some degree, 
become fused in certain types of Jewish thought with the 
idea of the "Wisdom" of God, by which He made 
the world, and by which He reveals Himself to man. And 
this in turn had been brought in contact with the Greek 
doctrine of the " Logos " or eternal Reason the rational 
order of the universe, and the divine spark in man. Although 
Paul never actually identifies Christ with the " Logos," as 

3 See especially The Book of Enoch (in Charles' Apocrypha 
and Pstudcpigrapha), and IV Ezra (=11 Esdras in the English 


the author of the Fourth Gospel does, yet in his attempt to 
understand the position of Christ in relation to man and his 
world he owes much to Logos speculation ; and he does 
call Christ " The Wisdom of God, 1 ' in so many words. 4 

In the world outside Judaism, the most living religions of 
the time generally centred in faith in a u Saviour-God," who 
was often believed to have lived, died, and risen again, and 
with whom the believer could win fellowship through 
certain rites. These were the so-called " mystery-religions." 
Their origins were various, their rites were sometimes 
wild and licentious, and in most the superstitions of magic 
and astrology played a part ; but at best their offer of fellow- 
ship with a Saviour-God ministered to a real religious need 
of the time. The view has been put forward that Paul 
reacted from Judaism practically to a mystery-religion of 
the ordinary type, with Jesus Christ as its mythical Saviour- 
God. One need not be committed to any such paradoxical 
opinion, if one holds that he was influenced both in thought 
and language by these cults probably not from personal 
knowledge, but because that sort of thing was " in the air " 
of the religious world at the t'me. His audience in the 
pagan world had not the background of Judaism. It did 
not know what he was talking about when he spoke of 
" the Christ " (" Messiah ") ; but when he spoke of " the 
Lord, the Saviour," the phrase at least conveyed some idea 
to their minds. Their highest religious experience had 
hitherto been associated with language of that kind, and it 
expressed an idea which could be filled in from the abundant 
material supplied by Christian experience and by the life 
and teaching of Jesus Himself. The Christian missionary 
in India, say, to-day, follows a not very different plan. 

From such sources are the terms of Paul's " Chris- 
tology" derived. But it cannot be too emphatically 

* I Cor. i. 24, 30. Tiie ' Wisdom ' idea is best represented 
by the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus in the English Apocrypha. 


repeated that the thing he is talking about in these terms 
is not a speculative idea, but a piece of real experience. 
That he had met Christ face to face he never doubted ; it 
was a part of his actual history. " It pleased God to reveal 
His Son in me " ; " last of all. He was seen of me also " ; 
" henceforth I am alive, and yet not I, but Christ is alive 
in me ; and the life which I now live under phvsical con- 
ditions I live by virtue of my trust in the Son of God, who 
loved me and gave Himself for me." 5 This is the authentic 
language of personal experience. Mr. H. G. Wells has 
told us that what he means by " God " has a close 
resemblance to what Paul meant by " Christ." 6 He 
is so far right that each of these men is telling us 
of a personal meeting with an unseen Friend and 
Leader, who is known at once, intuitively, to be the 
Leader of humanity, and the Friend of all who have 
yielded themselves to the divine call sounding in the heart 
of man. So far as one can judge, the chief specific differ- 
ences in the experience of the two men are that Paul's 
" Christ " bears the definite ethical lineaments of the his- 
toric Jesus, and that, unlike Mr. Wells's "Invisible King," 
He has a real and intimate relation to the whole universe 
and its Creator. He is, in fact, the " Son of God " the 
eternal type of all the relationship between personal beings 
and the personal Centre of reality. What Paul saw in the 
vision that changed his life was " the splendour of God in 
the face of Christ." The Christ he met is the " Wisdom 
of God " by which the worlds were framed that is, as we 
might put it, the ultimate meaning of all reality is no other 
than the meaning of the life and character of Christ. But, 
like the ** Invisible King," Paul's Christ has had a history 
entwined with the history of man. Man was made " in 

5 Gal. i. 15-16, ii. 19-20, 1 Cor. ix. i, iv. 4-8, cf. II Cor. iv. 
6, xii. 1-9. 

6 God the Invisible King, p. 6, cf. pp. ziii-xiv. 


the image of God " : that " image '' of God is Christ.7 
There is in men a life derived from their natural progenitor, 
whom Paul calls by the Hebrew word for man, " Adam." 
But there is in men also a higher life, by which they are 
linked with God and the eternal order. " The first man 
Adam became a living psy:hs^ the last Adam, a life-giving 
Spirit. . . . The first man is earthy, of clay ; the second 
Man is from heaven." This second Adam or heavenly 
Man-in-men is Christ. 8 The people of God in their ancient 
pilgrimage " drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, 
and that rock is Christ "; 9 or, as we might put it, the per- 
petual springs of the spiritual life of the Race are found in 

If we now recall what was said above of the dealings 
of God in history for the founding of the Divine Common- 
wealth, we shall see that in Paul's view every step in that 
direction was in some sense an act of Christ within humanity 
And every such step led forward to some decisive act in 
which what was before obscure and halting should become 
definite and effective. Then at last "in the fulness of 
time," Christ came. By a gracious act of God, His Son 
was " sent forth " ; or, to put the same thing in another 
way 5 by His own act of will, in absolute unity with the pur- 
pose of His Father, " He made Himself of no consequence, 
accepted the standing of a slave, and was born in human 
form ; and so, presenting the appearance of a man, He 
stooped to a subordinate position, and persevered in it till 
death a death on the gallows ! " In other words, He 
who is always and everywhere the Man-in-men became a 
man^ a Jew, a crucified criminal. I0 

So stated, the thought is by admission a difficult 
one. But there are certain points which need to be 

7 II Cor. iv, 4, Col. L 13-19, cf. I Cor. viii. 6. 

8 I Cor. iv. 45-49, cf. II Cor. iii. 17. 9 I Cor. x. 4. 

10 Gal. iv. 4, Rom. i. 3, viii. 3, II Cor. viii. 9, Phil. ii. 6-8. 


observed. The question in Paul's mind is not a ques- 
tion of the scarcely thinkable combination in one person 
of the contradictory attributes of transcendent Deity on 
the one hand and of a purely " natural " and non-divine 
humanity on the other. Humanity itself means Christ, 
and has no proper meaning without Him. Unless a man 
is a " son of God," he is so far less than man : he has yet 
to grow " to a mature man, i.e. to the measure of the full 
stature of Christ." The history of man is the story of 
the course by which mankind is becoming fully human. The 
controlling Mind in this history the " life-giving Spirit " 
of the whole process Paul conceives as a real personality, 
standing already in that relation to God in which alone 
man is fully human ; already, and eternally, Son of God. 
The emphasis, implied in Paul's teaching, upon the abso- 
lute importance of the entry of this Son of God into human 
history as an individual may be regarded as a part of the 
general movement of thought by which during these 
centuries the individual was for the first time being dis- 
covered, simultaneously with the transition from national 
or tribal to universal conceptions of human history. In 
the centre of this movement stands the personality of Jesus 
Christ, intensely individual, and yet wonderfully universal 
an individual who consciously gathered up in His hands the 
threads of history, and who has proved Himself through 
following ages to have a direct affinity with the most diverse 
types of man in all peoples. We can yet discern in Him 
a continuity with the universal higher impulses of humanity, 
and a personal command of men who are brought in touch 
with Him; and these are essentially the facts lying at the 
base of Paul's conception of the Son of God who became a 
man ** in the fulness of time." To this, however, we have 
to add, what we shall presently consider, the definite 
achievement which Paul saw to have issued from the life 
11 Eph. iv. 12-15. 


and death of Jesus, and which stands as a solid part of history. 
It is on the ground of what He achieved historically that 
Paul identified Jesus with the Son of God who is the " life- 
giving Spirit " of humanity. This, it may be suggested, is 
a firmer ground for the building of a " Christology " than 
minute psychological analysis of the meagre data concerning 
the self-consciousness of Jesus in the Gospels. Not that 
psychology is of no importance here ; for the investigation 
of phenomena of personality which seem to lie beyond the 
threshold of ordinary individual consciousness may well lead 
us nearer to an understanding of the greatest difficulty in 
which Paul's teaching about Christ after all leaves us the 
union of the universal and the individual in one personality, 
In any case we must set it down as a very sug- 
gestive element in Paul's thought, that he regards the 
whole of the individual life of Jesus as a working- 
out of one supra-historic act of self-sacrifice, in which 
we may see the gathering-up of the whole impulse 
of self-sacrifice to be found in the history of mankind. 
It is the " life-giving Spirit " from whom all this comes, 
and there was one human life which was entirely an 
expression of it, in that intense, purposive and deliberate 
form which is proper only to individuality." According to 
Paul, not only had that life of self-sacrifice decisive results 
for all men, but it marked a crisis also in the life-history of 
Christ. By that humiliation He actually attained a new 
relation to humanity and to God, for " God highly exalted 
Him " to be Lord of the Racers Henceforward having by 
His earthly ministry and death pioneered a highway for 
Himself into the hearts of men, He dwells spiritually in 
conscious communion with all those who are conformed to 
the image of His dying, so that their life is hidden with 

Col. i. 19, ii. 9. 

*3 Phil. ii. 9-11, CoL i. 18-20, Eph, i. 20-23, I Cor. iv. 
23-27, Rom. i. 4, yiii. 34, iiv. 9. 


Christ in God, and on earth they form His body, " until He 
come." 14 For a day is yet to come when Christ will he 
" revealed " in a new and fuller way, and with Him all 
who share His life. And in a figurative or mythological 
form he shows us Christ as the Captain of His redeemed, 
smiting His foes to the ground : and the last of them is 
death. Then, Lord of a redeemed and deathless universe, 
He makes the last sacrifice. As in the hour of His 
humiliation He rendered up His body and soul to God for 
the redemption of the world, so now, its victorious King, 
He yields up the Body His Spirit has created "that 
God may be all and in all." IS 

Such is in rough outline Paul's conception of the " historic 
Christ " a Christ who has a history of His own, intimately 
connected at every stage with the history of Alan from start 
to finish ; and who appears as an individual to share man's 
life at a point historically determined by His own working 
as hidden Spirit in humanity. That appearance on earth 
as an individual is the crisis in the history both of Christ 
Himself and of the humanity He saves and leads. The 
ministry of Jesus, therefore, culminating in His death, is 
essential to Paul's whole thought. If in certain aspects of 
his theology it is the death that bulks most largely because 
it seemed to him to be the purest and most moving 
expression of what the whole life meant he is quite 
aware that the ethical impulse given by the example 
and teaching of Jesus is of the very stuff of the 
Christian life. He alludes to the Gospel story but 
sparingly, but those who study his teaching most closely 
become aware that he is himself acting and speaking 

M I Cor. 1. 16-17, *ii. 12-27, Rom. xii. 4-5 (cf. also I Cor. vi, 
15), Col. i. 1 8, 24, ii. 19, iii. 15, EpL i. 23, ii. 5-7, 15-22, 
iv. 4-16; Rom. viii. 9-11, 17, 1 Cor. iii. ii, 23, II Cor. iv. lo-n, 
Col. i. 27, iii. 9-1 1 (cf. Gal iii. 28), EpL iii. 14-19. 

*5 IThess.iv. 13-7. 10, 1 Cor.iv. 12-28, Eph. i. 10 ct passim. 


all through under the impulse of the life and teaching of 
Jesus. If he refuses to "know Christ after the flesh/" 16 it 
means that he will not risk a harking-back to the temporary 
conditions of the Galilaean ministry when the Spirit of 
Christ is clearly leading out into new fields. The issues 
of that ministry have been gathered up in the new experi- 
ence of " Christ in me," and that experience gives a living 
Christ, who leads ever onward those who will adventure 
with Him, and not a prophet of the past, whose words might 
pass into a dead tradition. 

At the same time, the indwelling Christ is continuous 
with the Man who died ; and Paul clearly assumes a 
knowledge of the Jesus of the Gospels in his corre- 
spondents. It is probable, in fact, that our earliest 
Gospel took form to meet the needs of the new 
Churches of the Gentile Mission, and that the Gospel 
according to Luke represents the picture of Jesus Christ 
which was given to the Pauline Churches by one who had 
worked for years under Paul's own direction. At the 
same time, we must say that Paul's service to Christianity 
might have been even greater than it was if he had given 
dear expression to the direct religious value of the life 
that Jesus lived. One of the tasks still awaiting Christian 
thought is the filling out of the categories of Pauline 
theology from the content of the human life of Jesus. The 
Christian of this generation, to which modern scholarship 
has given a clearer picture, perhaps, of Jesus of Nazareth 
than has been possessed by men since the earliest ages of 
Christianity, should steep his mind in the stories and sayings 
of the Gospels, until the Figure of Jesus stands before him 
in the colours of life, and then turn anew to the glowing 
language in which Paul tells what that Figure meant for 
him and means for all men. So we shall miss neither 
the vivid humanity of the Gospel story nor the splendid 
* II Cor. v. 16-17. 


universality of Paul's vision of Christ the unseen Com- 
panion of humanity on its long pilgrimage, who for the 
accomplishment of His high mission wrough: in a human 
life the critical act of deliverance. 

To the consideration of that act of deliverance we must 
now turn. 


IT will be well at this i oint to recal the view which Paul 
sets before us of the situat'on with which Christ came to 
deal Humanity was fightirg a losing battle against Sin. 
For Sin had laid claim to the whole range of man's physical 
and psychical existence. The "inner man" maintained a 
feeble protest, especially where it was fortified by a dear 
knowledge of Right as expressed in law. But that protest 
did not make itself effective in action, for knowledge of 
the Law could not of itself overcome the weakness of the 
" flesh," So complete was the social and racial degradation 
of mankind that no individual born could escape partaking 
in the general wrongness, consciously or unconsciously. 
In either case the wrong way of life must lead to disaster 
" The Wrath," or inevitable Nemesis of Sin in a moral 
universe. To meet the need, a way must be found to 
break the power of Sin and secure for man a new moral 
competency and at the same time to replace the revelation 
of Right in terms of law by one which should establish 
personal relations congruous with the real character of God. 
There will therefore be two sides to the work of Christ, a 
negative or backward-looking, and a positive or forward- 
looking. On the one hand He must defeat Sin and clear 
scores with Law. On the other hand He must bring man 
moral power and create in him a principle of self-determined 
goodness. These two aspects of the matter cannot always 



be clearly distinguished, for they are complementary at every 
stage ; but we may say roughly that the one side is repre- 
sented by what is called the doctrine of Justification by 
Faith, the other by the even more important Pauline teach- 
ing about life " in Christ." We consider first the former 
aspect of the matter. 

In order to understand Paul's teaching here it is neces- 
sary t to give full weight to his belief in the solidarity 
of man. On the one side that solidarity Is considered as 
"forensic," i.e. mankind is regarded as a real corpora- 
tion which acts and suffers in the person of its repre- 
sentative. In primitive society the " personality" of 
the tribe or other community is so much more clearly 
defined than that of the individuals composing it that the 
whole community naturally suffers for any crime of one 
of its members. If an Achan breaks tabu^ his whole kin 
must perish. If a Macdonald of Glencoe delays to take 
the oath of allegiance, his whole clan must be massacred. 
It is only an extension of that idea when Paul thinks 
of the human race as a corporation represented on the 
natural plane by ** Adam," the hypothetical ancestor, whose 
act of sin involves the whole Race 5 but capable also of being 
represented by Christ, and sharing likewise in His "act 
of righteousness." I On the other hand the solidarity is 
considered as metaphysical. " Flesh," or the lower part 
of human nature, is thought of as a continuum, in which all 
individual men share. It is a tainted heritage which comes 
to each man burdened with the results of racial sin. 
Thus a blow struck at Sin by any human being who 
partakes of the " flesh " is struck on behalf of all. 

On this double idea of human solidarity rests the theoretical 

exposition of Paul's thought about the work of Christ It 

is clear that for the purpose of his doctrine the reality of 

Christ's human life is absolutely demanded. Only a real 

1 Rom. v* 12-21, I Cor. rv. 21-22. 


man of flesh and blood could strike the blow ;r all men. 
God, says Paul, sent His Son " in the fcrm of sinful flesh.'* 
The word '" form " is not to be taken as expressing any 
unreality. By taking " flesh/' Christ occupied the post 
of danger, for Sin was lord of the flesh, and claimed Him 
as its slave. That He successfully resisted that claim is the 
gift He gave to all men who are partakers with Him of our 
common nature. He was not a sinner in His own person ; 
but " God made Him sin for us." That is said from the 
point of view rather of the ** forensic " doctrine of solidarity. 
Jesus was made the representative of sinful man, and so before 
the law was responsible for sin. We have now an elaborate 
metaphor of a law-suit. Sin (personified) claimed its 
slave, but the verdict was given against the plaintiff. 
That, and not merely the moral censure of sin, is meant by 
the strange phrase that " God condemned Sin in the flesh.** 
The daim of Sin upon Christ was disallowed, and therefore 
the daim of Sin upon all men who are identified with Christ 
was disallowed. His death, which might seem a victory 
for Sin, is shown by the following resurrection not to be 
such a victory. Death had not touched Christ's real self ; 
it had become, instead of final defeat, a passage out of the 
bondage of " flesh " into the " liberty of the Spirit.'* " The 
death He died, He died in relation to Sin, once for all ; the 
life that He lives, He lives in relation to God." 3 

In all this, Christ is the representative of a corporation 
which potentially includes all humanity. Those who are 
made one with Christ by that act of "faith," which we shall 
presently consider more particularly, enter at once into the 
benefits of this emancipation from Sin and this liberty of the 
Spirit It is very clearly to be observed that Christ's action is 
throughout stricdy representative. He acts for us, but not in 
a sense which excludes us from the act, but rather includes 
as in it "One died for all ; therefore all died a " says Paul 
* II Cor. y. 21, Rom. viii. 3, vi. ro. 


quite clearly. And when he comes to expound the m tter 
in more detail, he shows that this co-operation in the act, 
however " forensically " it is conceived, is to be inter- 
preted in a very practical way. " He died for all, so that 
those who live should no longer live for themselves." In 
fact, Christ's action becomes available for men exactly in 
proportion as His representation of them becomes a real 
thing, that is in proportion as they accept its implica- 
tions, and make them the guiding principles of their 
own lives 3 

It is surely in a similar sense that we must understand 
the metaphor of sacrifice, which has been pressed so exclu- 
sively in much Christian theology, though so far as Paul 
is concerned it is less akin to his habitual ways of thought 
than the metaphor of the lawsuit. The practice of sacrifice 
is in one form or another characteristic of all religions 
in their earlier stages of development. The meanings 
given to it are various, but almost all depend upon the idea of 
solidarity in some sense. The victim is often considered 
as one with the Deity, and the worshippers by partaking 
in the sacrifice are admitted to the same unity. The 
sacrificing priest acts in a completely representative capacity : 
his act is the act of the body of worshippers, and the benefits 
of the act accrue to them all. Again, in many forms of 
ancient sacrifice the priest so represented the Deity that 
he was considered as identical with the Deity, and so also 
with the victim he offered. Deity, victim, priest, and wor- 
shippers formed in the act of sacrifice an organic whole. 
Just how much of this complex of ideas lay explicitly in the 
minds of the people to whom Pau" wiote it is 'mpossible 
to say ; but such is the background of the most universal 
element in the religions of his time. It has indeed 
been well observed that to the ancients it '-eemed that 
they had told the inmost secret of a matter when they had 
3 II Cor. v. 14-15, Rom. vi. 5-8. 


expressed it in terms of sacrifice, whereas for us it is just 
there that the difficulty begins. 

We may find a clue to the idea which for Paul was 
most regulative of the meaning of sacrifice in the exhor- 
tation which he addressed to his correspondents at Rome : 
"Offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and 
fit for God's acceptance, for this is the worship which 
reason renders/ 1 4 To give the sentence its proper tone 
we may recall that by "body" Paul meant the whole 
personality, and not merely the structure of flesh and 
blood. Sacrifice is therefore first of all the dedication 
to God of all that one has and is. It is surely of 
this sacrifice that he speaks when he uses that old-world 
expression "the blood of Christ" For to the ancient 
mind " the life thereof is the blood thereof." 5 The shedding 
of blood meant the laying down of the life. And this laying 
down of the life derives its full significance from the 
thought of solidarity. An ancient prophet had drawn 
from the thought of solidarity the splendid conception of an 
ideal Servant of the Lord who hould surrender h!s life in 
all manner of humiliation and suffering that others might 
live. " Thou shalt make his life an offering for sin. . . . 
By his knowledge shall My righteous Servant justify many." 6 
It seems to have been in that thought that Jesus went to His 
death. Paul did not regard this self-sacrifice of Christ as 
being altogether different in kind from the self-sacrifice to 
which all Christian people are called in their way. He 
professed himself ready " to make up the deficit of Christ's 
sufferings on behalf of His Body, the Community." 7 But 
there was a completeness about the self-dedication of Christ 
which, like everything about Him, pointed to a unique 

4 Rom. rii. i. 

5 Gen. ii. 4: so Rom. iii. 25, v. 9. I Cor. x. 16, zi. 25, 27, 
Eph, i, 7, ii. 13, Col i. 20. 

6 Is. liii. xo-ii. 7 Col. i. 24, II Cor. i. 5-7, 


relation to the universal action and eternal purpose of God 
for and in man, and which certainly proved itself decisive 
in its historical results* The sacrifice of Jesus Christ takes 
its unique significance from what He was. The ethical 
basis of it all is most clearly brought out by Paul. " Just 
as the transgression of a single individual issued in condemna- 
tion for all men, so the righteous act of a single individual 
issued for all men in a setting-right ('justification'),, 
which brought (new) life. For as through the disobe- 
dience of one man the multitude of men were set wrong, so 
by the obedience of the one the multitude will be set right," B 
In the light of all this we may read the passage in 
which Paul most explicitly sets forth the work of Christ 
in sacrificial terms : 

" All went wrong and missed the divine splendour ; and all 
are set right by God's free grace through the emancipation worked 
in the person of Jesus Christ. God set Him forth as a means of 
annulling sin, through the trust (of men), in virtue of the laying- 
down of His life. This God did to show His righteousness,, 
because of His passing-over of former wrongdoings while He 
held His hand with a view to showing His righteousness at 
the present time, so that He might be at once righteous and the 
Setter-right of those who take their stand upon trust in Jesus." 9 

On this difficult passage two comments in particular must 
be made. First, the word which our familiar version givts 
as "propitiation" does not mean propitiation, which is 
properly the soothing of an angry person. The noun 
hilasterion is derived from the verb hilaskesthat^ and means* 
an instrument or means for the accomplishment of the action 
indicated by the verb. The original meaning of hilaskesthai 
is " to soothe an angry person." I0 In the Greek Old Testa- 

8 Rom. v. 17-19. 9 Rom. iii. 23-26. 

10 From this sense of IXao-ireo-flat is derived the common usage 
in pagan inscriptions, 9EOIS IAASTIIPION, e a propitiatory 
offering to the gods ' ; but it is a mistake to argue directly from 
this to the Christian use of the noun. 


rnent, for example, it is so used for Jacob's propitiation of 
Esau. But while pagan usage frequently makes God the 
object of such an act, this idea is suggested in the Old 
Testament by only three passages out of some scores, and 
nowhere in the New Testament. 11 On the other hand, the 
meaning u to expiate or annul sin or defilement/' which is 
also found in the pagan use of the term, becomes the regular 
meaning in the Old Testament. The subject may be a 
man (such as a priest;, or God. In the former case the 
reference may be to sacrifice, or to ritual washing, or to 
any such act by which it was believed in ancient times that 
uncleanness could be removed. In the latter case, the 
meaning is equivalent to ""forgive." I3 In our present passage, 
though God is not actually made the subject of the verb 
" to expiate," yet He is said to have " set forth a means of 
expiation,** 1 or of dealing with sin. The means is shown to 
be thought of in sacrificial terms by the following mention 
of " blood," in the sense of life laid down. So far, therefore, 
from the sacrifice of Christ being thought of as a means of 
soothing an angry Deity, it is represented as an act of 
God Himself to cope with the sin which was devastating 
human life. 

The other comment is upon the latter part of the passage, 
and may be made more shortly by a reference to what 
has been said above (p. 76). " The passing-over of former 
wrong-doings " means the exhibition, in religious experience, 
of a principle of the divine dealing which is inconsistent 
with strict law. Under the old regime, as Paul sees it, 
there were two different principles at work, the principle 
of retribution embodied in the scheme of things, and the 
principle of mercy discerned in the personal dealings of God 

11 Unless ^.atrQrf.i pot, Lk. zviii. 15, is regarded as such a 
use ; but though passive in form, the verb is virtually intransitive 
in meaning * be propitious/ not * be propitiated.' 

E.g. Ps. kiv. 4 (Lxx.=kv. 3, E.T.) Dn. iz. 24 


with men. What was called for was a new revelation in 
which one* single principle of righteousness should be dis- 
played, and God's character be fully shown forth in dealing 
with human sin. 13 This was accomplished in God's gift of 
Christ, and in that act of self-dedication to which His 
" obedience " to God led him. 

There is nothing here about a penalty borne by Christ as 
a substitute for guilty man. The nearest Paul comes to 
such a suggestion is in a passage in the Epistle to the Ga-a- 
tians where he uses the metaphor of the " curse." 14 To the 
thought of the ancient world the curse was a real force 
launched upon the world and destined ultimately to work 
itself out. Such was the curse that lay upon the House of 
Atreus in Greek legend, and such the curse pronounced 
upon Babylon by the Hebrew prophets. Now the Law 
pronounced a curse upon all who should break it. Such a 
curse must fulfil itself, quite mechanically. It is a good 
argumentum ad homlnem^ at least, when Paul, writing to the 
half-Greek, half- Anatolian, and wholly superstitious people 
of the Galatian province, bids them think of Christ as having 
exhausted in His own person the venom of the ancient 
curse somewhat as Orestes in the Greek legend exhausted 
the curse of the House of Atreus and finally " reconciled " 
the Furies who pursued the family. The teachers who 
were seeking to bring Paul's converts back into the allegiance 
of the Jewish Law said that unless they complied at least 
with certain minimum requirements, the Law still had 
power to condemn them. Paul replies : " Even supposing 
the sentence of the Law to have all the inevitable ; otency 
you attribute to a solemn curse, yet such a curse can be 
exhausted. Now Christ bore that curse j for He was 
crucified, and the Law expressly puts under a curse the 
crucified person. Yet He survived it, and came out 

J 3 See Fearon Halliday, Reconciliation and Reality, in this 
series. J 4 Gal. iii. 13. 


victorious. He must therefore have broken the power 
of the curse, and you need fear the Law no more." In 
so far as this is more than metaphor, it is meaningless 
to us, for we do not believe that a curse is a substantive 
force working inevitably* But we do believe, because we 
see it actually happen, that there are circumstances in which, 
by defying the consequences, a person may so endure the 
pain of corporate wrongdoing as to win power to lead his 
fellows out of it. In that sense the comparison throws 
a real light upon the work of Christ. It is, however, only a 
passing illustration which occurred to Paul in the midst of 
that particular controversy, and he does not return to it in 
kter letters. 

More might be said of the various figures and forms of 
thought in which Paul embodies his conviction of the 
decisive value of the work of Christ. To our ways of 
thought his whole construction is not very satisfactory, if 
it be treated in any sense as a system of theology. But 
by the flashes of light he throws here and there we can 
partly re-read what he tries to portray. Jesus Christ took 
the full risk of the human fight against wrong. He 
accepted honestly and fearlessly all the conditions of human 
nature, and in the wilderness, on the mountain, in the 
garden, and in those countless " temptations " of which He 
spoke to His disciples, he faced the common foe. He faced 
ft as one ** born of woman," having in his human nature 
the conditions which in us all make for sin. He faced it as 
one ** born under the Law," that is as a Jew of His time, 
whose temptations took the specific forms proper to His 
age and country. What is more, He faced it as one who 
deliberately threw in His lot with the sinful and weak. He 
did not withdraw Himself or stand aloof, but was content 
to be known as the companion of disreputable characters. 
All this we know to be true of the actual life of Jesus Christ, 
And facing in this way our common battle, He won victory 


all along the line. He accepted life in a spirit of utter 
self-dedication of what Paul calls a " living sacrifice " 
and He carried it right through to death ; death with 
every circumstance of horror, and with every chance 
of escaping it almost to the very end, at the cost of the 
smallest unfaithfulness. 

But what has all this ancient history to do with us ? We 
should scarcely accept Paul's ways of stating solidarity* We 
do know, however, that solidarity is very real. We are in 
large measure the product for good and ill of the racial 
history which lies behind us, and of the social environment 
into which we are born. The mystery of heredity is not 
yet solved ; but certainly since man had a mental life or 
" psychology," that psychology has been social as well as 
individual, and it comprises factors, present in the individual^ 
which are due to the experience cf the race, and most of all to 
the achievements of its leaders. The champions of a nation's 
liberties, to take an example, bequeath to their nation more 
than the actual constitutional liberties they secure in black 
and white : they form a psychology of liberty into which 
every member of that nation is born. He must do some- 
thing with it ; he may disown and struggle against it, but 
he cannot divorce his life from its influence. The same 
is true of the great witnesses to truth, and the great lovers 
of men the poets and artists in life, to whose music the 
chords of every individual soul within their corporate 
tradition are strung, whether they are played upon or not. 
So it is that on a universal human scale what Christ did He 
did for us. His great fight and victory are part of the spiritual 
history of the Race, into which we are all born. We react 
one way or another to those decisive facts. They happened^ 
and they exist to-day as an indelible part of the psychological 
heritage of man. The world in which Christ died is not 
a world in which one can live without meeting at all points > 
in oneself and in one's environment, the moral challenge 


and the moral possibilities which that event mingled in 
the stuff of our history. We may react differently to them. 
One will accept Christ's way, thereby laying himself open 
to all the divine forces, working within humanity, which 
Christ released. Another will reject His way, and thereby 
make himself an alien from this main stream of spiritual 
progress. In either case, the acceptance or rejection is not 
a theoretical attitude to a dim past, but a daily reaction to 
forces " in the air " of the world in which we move from 
day to day. Society is still a tangle of conflicting forces ; 
we throw our lives into the sphere of these forces or of those. 
To be a Christian is to fling oneself without reserve into the 
stream of forces issuing from Christ's supreme moral 

When we take this point of view, there are certain elements 
in the life and death of Jesus Christ which are seen at once 
t3 be decisive for us all. He greeted God as Father and 
Friend in everything and at every point. His life was 
that of a Son, and it was as a Son of God that He made 
His sacrifice of self-dedication to the Father. Towards 
His fellows a love such as He discerned in God was the 
perpetual motive power of action a love generous, impartial, 
uncalculating, passionate to save a love that put active, 
unceasing beneficence to the ** neighbour " in the central 
place, and met wrong with an overplus of good. In such a 
life, the principle of sonship and of freedom from retributive 
Law is made manifest, and so the possibility of a new kind 
of life is communicated to man. 

A word should here be spoken upon the significance 
which Paul attaches to the resurrection of Christ as the 
consummation of His work. It is true that for him, and 
certainly for us, the resurrection is vastly more important 
as the condition of that permanent communion with Christ 
which is the centre of the new life. Of this much more will 
be said presently. But Paul also sees in it the conclusive 


proof of His victory over Sin. For us it can hardly take 
the same place it took for him in precisely this relation, if 
only because bodily death has not for us the same intimate 
connection with Sin that Paul had been taught to attribute 
to it. 15 We see in death something quite natural, and not 
necessarily horrible. Yet in the fact that death had, mani- 
festly, no power to quench the living activity of Jesus Christ 
we may see a pledge that the natural order itself is sub- 
ordinate to the ends of the spiritual life. In that order the 
death of the body is an episode, of much interest and signifi- 
cance indeed, but still only an episode, for those who stand 
for what Christ stood for which is in the end what the 
Universe stands for. Putting it negatively, we might say : 
Suppose Christ, having lived as He did live and died as He 
did die, had then simply gone under. Suppose no one had 
henceforward had any sense of dealing with Him. Suppose 
in particular that that great wave of spiritual experience 
had not passed over the primitive Christians, assuring them 
that their Lord was in their midst, and making a Church 
possible. Suppose all this to be true : it would not neces- 
sarily destroy the validity of what Christ stood for ; but 
it might leave us asking whether perhaps He was a mere 
rebel against a universe which, on the whole, stood for 
something quite different There are many who do think 
so. They are our allies in the great fight, but they are 
apt to be depressing allies. If, on the other hand, we hold 
the continued personal existence and activity of Jesus Christ 
to be an assured fact, then we know that what He wrought 
on our behalf is also wrought into the very fabric of the 
universe in which we live ; and we are at home in it, 
even while we rebel against its wrongs. 

*5 Rom. v. 12, vi. 23, I Cor. iv. 21. This idea is part of 
Paul's Jewish heritage. Cf. IV Ezra iii. 7, vii. 118. See also 
Fearon Halliday, op cit. pp. 141-146. 


THE death of Jesus Christ, then, we shall consider as a 
decisive fact not only in past history, but in the present 
constitution of man's world of thought and action, a fact 
towards which we must needs take up an attitude positive 
or negative. It was the crisis of a great conflict. The 
forces of evil gathered themselves for a decisive assault upon 
the moral integrity of the Son of God. They drove Him 
through the horror of failure, scorn, agony of mind and body, 
dereliction of soul, and death in darkness. For all the storm 
He never bent or broke. It did not change His perfect 
self-surrender to God, or the purity of His love to those who 
wrought the wrong. Therein was the proof of His victory. 
Such is the fact to which we have to orientate ourselves. 
We may decline to accept for ourselves what Christ did ; 
we may refuse the principle which His life and death carried 
to victory. If so, then we assert against Christ the contrary 
principle, the principle which slew Him. " Saul, Saul, 
why persecutest thou Me ? " is the protest which Christ 
utters against our action. On the other hand, we may 
accept the principle of what Christ did. We may accept 
it, not as those who believe themselves fit and " able to 
drink of that cup, and with that baptism to be baptized," 
but as those who are willing that the act and mind of God 
so revealed should be the principle of their own lives, and 



will leave the shaping of those lives to Him. This is what 
Paul calls "faith." 

This conception is of such fundamental importance in 
Paul's teaching that we must try to understand it more 
particularly. In the theological constructions which have 
been based upon Paul the term " faith " has suffered such 
twistings and turnings that it has ahnost lost definition of 
meaning. Indeed, even in Paul's own use of the word there 
is very great complexity. Perhaps, however, we may get 
a clue from his uss of the familiar words " faith to remove 
mountains." The expression echoes a saying of Jesus 
Christ ; and we shall not go far wrong in starting from 
the use Jesus made of the word. " Have faith in God " 
was the one condition He propounded to those who sought 
His help. 1 By that is clearly meant trust, confidence 
directed towards God as the Father and Friend of men. 
This is the meaning of the word to Paul. 2 As it is Christ 
who not only shows us the God in whom we trust, but who 
has also Himself cleared away obstacles and made such trust 
possible, faith is alternatively described as " the faith of 
Christ," or " faith towards Christ" 3 That, however, is 
for Paul in no way different from faith in God. God is in 
the last resort the object of faith, for " God is trustworthy." 
That is the fundamental postulate of Paul's belief : God is 
worthy of our trust. 4 It remains for us to trust Him suffi- 
ciently to let Him act. It is wrong to suppose that for Paul 
faith is a meritorious act on man's part, which wins salvation, 

t I Cor. xin. 2, cf. ML ii. 22-23. 2 I Thess. 5. 8. 

3 Rom. iii. 22, 26, Gal. ii. 16, iii. 22, Eph. iii. 12, Phil. iii. 9 
(the genitive is not subjective in any case) ; Col. ii. 5. Hearts kv 
Xpi0T&> is probably not exactly what we mean by ' faith in Christ ' ; 
it is rather faith towards God as conditioned by communion with 
Christ, Col. i. 4, Eph. i. 15. In Gal. iii. 26 it is doubtful if kv 
Xpttrry 'Irjtrov is to be construed with irtarrew. Outside these 
three passages the expression doa not occur in Paul. 

4 I Cor. i. 9, x. 13, II Cor. i. 18, I Thess. v. 24. 


or even, in a more modern war of speech, a creative moral 
principle in itself. Paul does not, in fcct, spe?,I: when he is 
using language strictly, of "justification l-y fcirh," t> ut ^ 
"justification by grace through faith," or ""0:1 the ground 
of faith." 5 This is not mere verbal su h:Lt;:. It means 
that the " righteousness of God " becomes ours, not by the 
assertion of the individual will as such, rut by :hs willingness 
to let God work. The critical moment in the religious 
life, according to Paul, is the moment when one is willing 
to "stand still and see the salvation of Gxl." We can see 
how he came upon that thought. Paul had supposed that 
he was securing "righteousness" by a lire of feverish 
activity, self-assertive, competitive, violent. It all did 
nothing but involve him more deeply in moral impotence. 
Then he was struck down. " Lord, what wilt Thou have 
me to do ? " was the confession of surrender, the word of 
" faith." 

"Naked I wait Thy love's uplifted strode. 
My armour piece by p : ece Thou hast hewed from me. 
I am defenceless utterly." 

Such is the tone of saving faith in God. It is surrender. 
As related to Jesus Christ, it is expressed in the saying " I 
am crucified with Christ" or at least that is part of the* 
meaning of those pregnant words. For the cross of Christ 
manifests utter self-abandonment to the will of God. When 
Paul sought to recall his Galatian converts to the full meaning 
of their faith, he reminded them how he had " depicted 
Christ crucified before their eyes," and that had inspired 
their surrender to God. 6 

This trust in God is, Paul says, the ground of our " justifi- 

5 EpL ii. 8, Rom. iii. 30, iv. 16, v. i, is. 32, Gal. ii. 16, 
iiL 24, EpL iii. 12, 17. 
* Gal. ii. 19, iii. i, ri. 14; cf. Ac. nii. 8-10. 


cation," or " setting-right." The word is in the first place 
a term of the law-courts. Much as we are said to " j ustify " 
a course of action when we show it to be the right course, a 
judge was said to "justify" a man when he pronounced him, 
upon the evidence, innocent of any crime kid to his charge, 
and so restored him to his rights as a citizen. Here, there- 
fore, we have one of a whole series of religious and ethical 
terms which were inherited from Judaism with its legal 
outlook. For the later Jews morality was a legal obligation 
to be met ; sin was a '* debt," forgiveness a " remission " 
of the legal penalty. Along with these terms goes the word 
"justification," meaning the acquittal of an accused person. 
It must first be understood in its proper legal sense, with 
the help of the entire setting of the law-court, and then as 
the whole of ethics is translated out of legal into personal 
terms, "justification" will be translated with the rest. 
Paul's whole work is a standing challenge to make such a 
translation complete. 

Here then we have the human soul a prisoner at the bar of 
ideal righteousness its own thoughts accusing and defending, 
as Paul says. 7 The verdict on the facts must be "Guilty" : 
there can be no other. No soul is clear from personal 
participation in the moral evil of the race. That verdict 
carries with it the sentence to go on sinning till moral disaster 
ensues ; for the Wrath or Nemesis of sin is that man is left 
to his own evil propensities. The sin we have admitted 
into our life is self-propagating, for " what a man sows, he 
reaps." 8 But now the prisoner makes his appeal : " I 
confess myself guilty, a slave of sinful habit. Nevertheless 
I disown this sinful self. I accept the act of Christ, as 
representing me. He died to sin ; I make His act mine. 
I am crucified with Christ, and I throw myself in trust 
upon the God whom Christ has shown me." 

7 Rom. ii. 15. 

8 Gal. vi. 7, Rom. vi. 23, interpreted by i. 18 sqq. 


" I bind unto myself to-day , . . 
By power of faith, Christ's : ncamation . . ! 
His death on Cross for my salvation, 
His rising from the spiced tomb, 
His riding up the heavenly way." 8 * 

On that basis the prisoner is acquitted. The process 
cannot be understood apart from the antique idea of 
solidarity which has already been explained. The accused 
is acquitted, not by virtue of a righteousness individually 
achieved by him, but by virtue of the righteousness of 
his representative which he accepts as his own by the 
act of faith. " The righteous act of one issues in justifi- 
cation for all ... through the obedience of one the 
multitude are set right" 9 There is no thought of a 
penalty borne by a substitute, but only of a righteousness 
achieved by a representative. 

So far it would seem that the transaction is a legal fiction. 
To an ancient, indeed, its fictitious character would scarcely 
be obvious, since for him representation was a fact, and not a 
fiction. For us, however, if this is all there is to be said, 
then the doctrine of justification is unreal. But this is not 
all. We now approach the translation from legal into 
personal terms. What is the actual state of mind of the 
"justified " person ? He has disowned, not merely certain 
evil practices, but his own guilty self. That is implied 
in the act of faith in Christ. He is crucified with Christ. 
So far as the whole intention of his mind is concerned, that 
guilty self is dead and done with. The controlling factor 
in the situation is the power and love of God as revealed in 
Christ and His " righteous act." That is the centre about 
which the man's whole being moves in the moment of 
"faith." Outwardly, he is the same man he was, open 
still to his neighbours' harsh judgment, liable still to con- 
s' Breastplate of St. Patrick. 9 Rom. v. 18-19. 


damnation under a law which balances achievement against 
shortcoming. But really the man is changed through and 
through by that act of self-committal, self-abandonment to 
God. Before God he is indeed dead to sin and alive in a 
quite new way to righteousness. In fact, he is righteous, 
in a fresh sense of the word ; in a sense in which righteous- 
ness is no longer, so to say, quantitative, but qualitative ; in 
which it consists not in a preponderant balance of good deeds 
achieved, 10 but in a comprehensive attitude of mind and will. 
If our highest values are personal values, then at bottom a 
man is right or wrong according to his relation with the 
personal centre of reality, which is God. There is only 
one such relation which is right, and that is the relation of 
trusting surrender to God. A man who is in that rektion 
to God is right. He is justified, in no fictitious way, but 
by the verdict of reality. He possesses righteousness 
" not a righteousness of my own, resting upon law, but the 
righteousness which comes through trust in Christ, (or to 
put it differently) the righteousness which comes from God 
on the condition of trust." 

There is a real moral and religious revolution here. A 
legal religion lays all the emphasis on what a man does, or 
wills to do. The power of the will, the self-assertive element 
in us, is brought into the foreground. In direct contrast to 
this is the religion which says that not what we do, but what 
God does, is the root of the matter. " It is not a matter 
of deeds done, lest anyone should boast." Righteousness 

10 " Much good, some ill he did, so hope all's even, 
And tliat his soul through mercy's gone to heaven." 

So ends the epitaph of Elihu Yale, the founder of Yale 
University, on his tombstone in the churchyard of Wreiham, 
North Wales. 

11 Phil. iii. 9, cf. Rom. vi. r-ii, riii. 14, Gal. v. 24, Col. iii. 
9-11. See also Fearon Halliday, op. cit* chs. x.-xii, 

EpL ii. 9, Rom. iii. 27, I Cor. iii. 7 (cf. i. 18-31), iv. 7. 


is not the offering of sacrifice, the doing of good deeds, the 
entertaining of right opinions, or any of the things whereby 
the self is asserted. It is the quiet acceptance of that working 
of God whereby we are saved. " It is good that a man should 
both trust and quietly wait for the Lord." The immense 
energy of the religious life is rooted in a moment of passivity 
in which God acts. There is, in fact, no ultimate deliverance 
from sin apart from this. If every man started his course 
with a clean sheet and a perfectly free will, things might be 
different. But none of us do so start. Our best efforts 
at self-reform are tainted and misdirected by the evil that is 
in us. That is why so often the most sincere efforts of 
religious men have produced the most disastrous results. The 
more fervour and energy they throw into their endeavours, 
the worse for society. The author of Ecclesiastes had this- 
kind of righteousness in mind when he gave the caution 
"Be not righteous overmuch." Paul knew about it, 
for he had, in the fervour of his religious zeal, been a perse- 
cutor. But on the Damascus road he came to a standstill ; 
and in that moment a new creation was effected. The 
weight of past evil was gone : a new life, God-directed, 

How immense the moral task which this new creation 
imposes we shall presently see. For the moment let us 
contemplate the significance of this revolution in religion. 
The higher faiths call their followers to strenuous moral 
effort. Such effort is likely to be arduous and painful in 
proportion to the height of the ideal, desperate in proportion 
to the sensitiveness of the conscience. A morbid scrupulous- 
ness besets the morally serious soul. It is anxious and 
troubled, afraid of evil, haunted by the memory of failure. 
The best of the Pharisees tended in this direction, and no 
less the best of the Stoics. And so little has Christianity 
been understood that the popular idea of a serious Christian 
is modelled upon the same type of character. There is 


little joy about such a religion 5 and as any psychologist 
can tell us, the concern about evil magnifies its power. The 
ascetic believed that because he was becoming so holy the 
Devil was permitted special liberties with him, and found 
in his increasing agony of effort a token of divine approval. 
Not along this track lies the path of moral progress. 
Christianity says : Face the evil once for all, and disown it. 
Then quiet the spirit in the presence of God. Let His 
perfections fill the field of vision. In particular let the 
concrete embodiment of the goodness of God in Christ 
attract and absorb the gaze of the soul. Here is righteous- 
ness, not as a fixed and abstract ideal, but in a living human 
person. The righteousness of Christ is a real achievement 
of God's own Spirit in man. It Is a permanent and growing 
possession of humanity. It is historic and integral to our 
world. Let that righteousness be the centre of attention, 
and the sole movement of the soul a full consent to God from 
whom it all proceeds. When that is so, the morbid cleft 
between the soul and its ideal is bridged ; the insidious 
haunting presence of sin is banished ; new powers invade 
the soul. " It is God who is at work in us, both in act and 
in will."* 

It is perhaps worth while to add that modern psycho- 
logists recognize the importance of passivity or self- 
surrender as the means to a renewal of life and energy. 
" Weakness results from the wastage caused by restlessness 
of mind ; Power comes from a condition of mental 
quietude," says one of them, adding that u several of the 
greatest psychologists . . . have tended towards the view 
that the source of power is to be regarded as some impulse 
that works through us, and is not of our own making." 14 
Another observes that " to exercise the personal will is still 

*3 Ph2. ii. 13, cf. I Thess. ii. 15, II Cor. iii. 5, 1 Cor. xiL 6. 
Col. i. 29, Eph. i. 19-20, iii. 20-21* 

*4 J. H, Hadfidd in The Spirit^ pp. 106, lio. 



to live in the region where the imperfect self is the thing 
most emphasized. Where, on the contrary, the sub- 
conscious forces take the lead, it is more probably the better 
self in posse that directs the operation." Accordingly a 
person a must relax, that is, he must 611 back on the 
larger Power that nukes for righteousness. 15 

We must now observe that this experience of "justifica- 
tion n assumes a different aspect according as the point of 
view is specifically religious or spe ^fically ethical. Religious 
experience has about it something which is timeless or eternal 
In the moment of the soul's touch with God the time pro- 
cess disappears. Hence " justification 1 ' as a pure religious 
experience of the grace of God is complete in itself and eternal 
in its value. Paul can speak of it historically as if 
for the Christian it was an event finished once for all. 1 * 
But, on the other hand, no one has more cogently than 
he presented the tremendous moral endeavour to live 
out the righteousness of God. From this ethical point of 
view, to which the time-process is all-important, righteous- 
ness is a gradual attainment. Almost at the very end of his 
life Paul could write, ** It is not as though I had already 
won, or become perfect ; I am pressing on in the hope that 
I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus kid hold of 
me. My brothers, I do not reckon that I have laid hold 
of it yet 5 but there is one thing I do forget all that lies 
behind, and stretch out to what lies before, and I press on 
towards the mark, for the prize of God's upward call in 
Christ Jesus." I? One who spoke in that way can hardly 
be accused of neglecting the progressive element in morality. 

*5 William James, Farieties of Religious Experience, pp. 209- 
10. The passages here quoted are taken by James from Star- 
buck ; but the whole of James* discussion of the type of conversion 
* by self-surrender/ in Lecture ii. provides an illuminating com- 
ment on Paul. l6 Rom, v. i, 9, viii. 30, 1 Cor. vi. n. 

J 7 Phil. iii. 12-14, cf. I Cor. ii. 23-27, Gal. v. 5. 


Yet Paul is never far from the thought of that finished work 
from which all human endeavour flows. " Work out your 
own salvation, because it is God who is at work in you.*' rt 

There is a difficulty here for us, as it proved a difficulty 
for his first converts. It may be that the peculiar character 
of his own conversion its suddenness and completeness 
may have led him into too unqualified statements of the 
" once-for-all-ness " of justification. In any case it is 
clear that he was misunderstood on this point by converted 
pagans who took in unintelligent literalness his strong 
asseition that " we have been cleansed, justified, sanctified."' 
We cannot, however, escape from the difficulty by any short 
cut There is a finality in that religious experience which 
Paul calls justification, while there is none the less a moral 
process. For most of us there must be a repeated harking 
back to the moment of surrender. After failure and fell 
we must enter once more into the " secret place of the Most 
High " to renew our abnegation of the guilty self and our 
acceptance of the righteousness of God in Christ Paul 
perhaps allows too little for this necessity, explicitly at least. 
But for all that, it is of vital importance that he told us so 
plainly that everything depends on an act of God, eternal 
and single, in the soul, renewable indeed by acts of faith, 
but in its essence the one abiding fountain of all such acts, 
as of all moral endeavour. 

"God justifies the ungodly." 19 That is the watch- 
word of the Pauline Gospel. It states in a dogmatic 

18 Phil. ii. 12-13* We may observe tow this reproduces in 
new terms wliat Jesus had said about the Kingdom of God. 
" It is your Father's good pleasure to give you the Kingdom " ; 
and yet " Seek ye first the Kingdom of God " : " The Kingdom 
of God is like treasure hid in a field, which a man found, and 
. . . sold all he had and bought that field " : " Strait is the 
gate and narrow the way that leadeth unto life." 

*9 Rom. iv. 5* 


phrase the truth which the life of Jesus declared. To 
the paralytic He pronounced forgiveness, there and then, 
before any amendment or reparation of wrong had taken 
place, simply on the ground of faith. The woman who 
was a sinner He accepted as forgiven, finding the proof 
of it in the love she showed. He received disrepu- 
table characters. No Pharisee would have objected, one 
supposes, if He had first made them respectable and then 
consorted with them. The Pharisees could not away with 
this restoration to full rights as children of God on the sole 
ground of a simple faith. To forgive the paralytic was 
" blasphemy " ; to receive sinners was a scandal. But 
Jesus told a story of two men who went to pray. The 
disreputable tax-collector threw himself on the mercy of 
God in simple trust. He went home "justified." The 
Pharisee thanked God for the righteousness he had attained 
as Paul would say, u he gloried before God on the ground 
of works/' But he was not j ustified. One Pharisee at least 
awoke to the truth, and he has told us what it meant. It 
took a Pharisee to see all that Christ's action implied. Paul 
the Pharisee put it into the crabbed theological terms he had 
been taught, but transcended those terms in the statement. 
It will help towards the appreciation of what Paul meant 
by the forensic term "justification " if we consider other 
figures which he uses to describe the same experience. It 
is emancipation, deliverance from the yoke of an external 
moral standard and from the tyranny of evil habit. The 
justified man is like a slave freed from his master's power; or 
like a widow whom her husband's death has emancipated 
from the absolute dominion (potestas) into which Roman 
Law gave the married woman ; or like the heir who on 
attaining his majority bids farewell to guardians and 
trustees, and becomes master in his own house. 20 It is no 

associated with otjecuWic Rom. iii. 24, 
I Cor. L 30, cf. Eph. i. 7, 14, Col. i. 14. See also Rom. 


mere change of status of which Paul speaks in such meta- 
phors. It is a real deliverance from something which 
denies free play to the human will to good. Yet it is not 
the attainment of that " unchartered freedom " which means 
bondage to " chance desires." 3I On the other side, it means 
entering into a new allegiance. Once Paul describes it, 
apologizing for the boldness of the metaphor, as " servitude " 
towards God. And indeed his perpetual use of the appella- 
tion " slave of Jesus Christ," which is directly correlative 
to the title " Lord," preserves always the sense of a very 
binding allegiance. The immediate antecedents of language 
of that kind are probably to be found in the religious termi- 
nology of the time. The members of a religious cult, bound 
sacramentally to one another and to their patron God, 
addressed Him as their "Lord." The Emperor was 
addressed as "Lord" when he was regarded as a divine 
object of worship. It was because the Christian would 
not give the Emperor the divine honour which he 
retained for Jesus alone, that the Church came into 
deadly conflict with the Empire. Thus Paul thought 
of the Christian life as freedom within a very absolute 

The more pregnant term, however, for this relation to 
God is "sanctification." In religious language "holy" 
means devoted to the Deity. The sanctification of 
the Christian means that he is entirely devoted to God ; 
he is as truly and exclusively dedicated to the service 
of God as any temple or priest in the older religions. 
The distinction which theology has made between 
justification as the momentary act of deliverance and 
sanctification as the process of attaining perfection is 
not to be found in Paul. For him they are only 

vi. 6-7, 12-23, viii. 2 y II Cor. iii. 17, Gal. iv. 1-7, 21-31, 
v. i, 23. 

a* See Wordsworth, QJt to Duty. 


different aspects of the same act. 33 By the same act of 
grace that justifies we are also sanctified ; and as the righteous- 
ness attributed to us by the act of justification is to be appro- 
priated through a course of moral endeavour, so is the sanctity 
imparted to us by the same act to be worked out in the moral 
life. God justifies the ungodly, and in the same sense He 
sanctifies the unholy. He claims us as entirely His own ; and 
in proportion as we admit that claim steadily in all the 
changing experiences of life, it establishes itself in a character 
bearing the manifest stamp of God. 

We are already at the point of transition from what has 

been called the negative or backward-looking aspect of 

Christ's work for us to the positive or forward-looking. 

The two aspects are combined by Paul in one striking and 

comprehensive metaphor, that of dying and rising again. 

Here he makes use of the symbolism of baptism, which in 

the East was performed by the complete immersion of the 

believer in water. " We were buried with Christ through 

our baptism (and so entered) into a state of death, in order 

that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the 

splendour of the Father, we too might walk in the newness 

which belongs to (real) life." 23 To the rite as such Paul 

did not attach overwhelming importance. " Christ," he says, 

" did not send me to baptize, but to preach the GospeL" *4 

But to his pagan converts it appealed as a sacrament parallel 

to those of the Greek mysteries. The governing idea of all 

mysteries was that by the performance of physical acts 

spiritual effects could be attained. And principally, such 

sacramental acts united the worshipper with his dying and 

rising Saviour-God. In some cults such a union seems to 

have been regarded as a real dying and rising of the worshipper, 

in the sense that through the sacrament he acquired from 

M I Cor. 71. 1 1 , i. 30, cf. Rom. vi. 19, 1 Thess. iv. 3-7, 1 Cor. iii. 
16-17, vi. 19, EpL ii. 21. 
*3 Rom. vi. x-ix, Col. iL 10-13. * 4 I Cor. i. 13-17. 


the God an immortal essence. In a similar way Paul's 
pagan converts thought of baptism, Paul recognized in 
the idea a most suggestive figure for the change wrought 
by faith in Christ. He found it necessary to guard against 
the crude sacramentalism which found in the mere physical 
process as such the actual impartation of new life, quite 
apart from anything taking place in the realm of inward 
experience. The Israelites in the wilderness, he pointed 
out in a curious argument, received baptism in the Red 
Sea and in the cloud which overshadowed them ; and 
yet they were disobedient, " the majority of them God did 
not choose," and they perished miserably. 3 5 The inference 
is plain. No sacramental act achieves anything unless It 
is an outward symbol of what really happens inwardly in 
experience. The test of that is the reality of the new life 
as exhibited in its ethical consequences. " How can we 
who are dead to sin live any longer in sin ?" If baptism 
is a real dying and rising again, then it is indeed a profound 
revolution in the personal life, a revolution which is simply 
bound to show itself in a new moral character* 

It is in this sense that Paul appeals to the baptism of the 
Christian the act by which he entered into the Christian 
communion. If that rite means anything, he says, it means 
that you share with Christ His dying to sin and His rising 
to new life. 

" The death He died, He died in relation to sin, once for all ; 
the life He lives, He lives in relation to God. In the same 
way you must reckon yourselves as dead in relation to sin, and 
alive in relation to God in (communion with) Christ Jesus. And 
so Sin must not reign in your mortal body" (i.e. in the physical 
part of the individual organism, in which, according to Paul, 
Sin had become firmly entrenched) " so that you obey its desires* 
Do not make over your bodily organs to Sin, as implements of 
unrighteousness, but make yourselves over to God, as persons 

5 I Cor. x. I-TI. 


raised to life from the dead, and your bodily organs as implements 
of righteousness to Him. For Sin shall not be your lord, since 
you are not under Law, but tinder (God's) grace." a6 

In reading the passage we are aware that Paul is 
speaking of something profoundly real in his own experience. 
We have left now the region of mere metaphor, and entered 
into a sphere where spiritual realities are described in terms 
not indeed adequate to them, but coming as near as may he 
to direct expression. The " death " spoken of is a real 
deadening of certain sides of the nature, a real privation 
of life and energy on the part of evil propensities. " I am 
crucified to the world." The crucified person the man 
with the hangman's rope about his neck, shall we say ? 
has done with this world, its interests and concerns. It is 
all over. The mind has become detached. Even so Paul 
found that in the moment of his conversion he had become 
detached from much which had before dominated him. 
That obstinate *' covetousness " which the contemplation of 
law had seemed only to strengthen the ambition, egoism, 
perhaps lust, which are summed up in that word was 
dried up from its springs. He cared no more about the 
very things which had been his greatest pride. ** The things 
which used to be gain to me," he wrote, " I have now 
reckoned so much loss because of Christ In fact, I 
reckon everything mere loss, because the knowledge 
of Christ Jesus my Lord so far exceeds them all. On 
His account I have actually suffered the loss of every- 
thing, and I reckon it all mere refuse so that I may 
gain Christ." *7 

It is apparent that, stated in its absolute form, this " death 
and resurrection " was not true of many of his pagan converts. 
To them the " death " was ceremonial, the " resurrection " 
a theoretical inference from it, and the moral change had 

a * Rom. vL 12-14. 7 Gal. vi. 14, Phil, in. 7-11. 


taken place only partially. That is why, instead of the 
positive statement which would seem to be required logically, 
he sometimes gives an exhortation. "Let not Sin reign . . . 
Do not make your bodies implements of unrighteousness." 
He seems, indeed, to have found by experience the necessity 
for greater emphasis on the process. " I have been crucified 
with Christ," he wrote to the Galatians in the height of 
his mission. It has been pointed out that crucifixion is in 
any case a lingering death* But in what is possibly his last 
letter he speaks of " getting conformed to His death " a 
process not yet complete. Yet he knew always that every- 
thing was involved in that decisive moment. He died to 
sin once. Thenceforward he " carried about in the body 
the dying of the Lord Jesus," and the course of life as it 
came day by day made the death more and more a reality 
in the workaday world. 38 More and more in those later 
days he was conscious that the real life he lived was a hidden 
life. " You died," he wrote to the Colossians from his 
Roman prison, "and your life lies hidden with Christ in 
God. When Christ, who is our life, is manifested, then we 
too shall be manifested with Him in splendour." *9 The 
" self behind the frontage," it has been observed, is in all of 
us something greater than the self of the shop-window 
which all the world can see. J For the Christian that secret 
self is perpetually nourished into greatness by inward com- 
munion with God in Christ. 

" As torrents in summer, 
Half-dried in their channels, 
Suddenly rise, the' the 
Sky is still cloudless, 
For rain lias been falling 
Far off at their fountains 

** II Cor. iv. 7-1 1. *9 Col. Hi. 1-4. 

3 H. G. Wells, The New Mackiavelli, pp. 291-2. 


So hearts that are fainting 
Grow full to o'crflowing, 
And thej that behold it 
Manrel, and know not 
That God at their fountains 
Far off has been raining." 3 1 

The faithful endeavour to keep open all the avenues 
between this hidden world and the world of every day is 
the way to what Paul means by " getting conformed to 
the death of Christ" and "knowing the power of His 


Longfellow, Saga of King Qlaf, nil. 


" GOD gives proof of His love for us in the fact that while 
we were still in the wrong Christ died for us. Much 
more then, now that we have been set right by means of His 
self-sacrifice, shall we be saved from the Wrath through Him. 
For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God 
through the death of His Son, much more now that we are 
reconciled shall we be saved by means of His life." 1 In that 
repeated "much more" is much virtue. Theology has 
often represented Paul as though he were supremely or even 
solely interested in the death of Christ on the cross and the 
" Atonement" thereby effected. This is a somewhat 
ironical fate for one who showed so clearly that his eyes 
were set upon the risen Christ, and his thought returned 
gladly again and again to the wonder of the new life He gave. 
That positive gospel of the resurrection-life in Christ was 
an even greater thing to Paul than the doctrine of justification, 
important as this was in clearing the ground of all that 
cumbered the course. ** If you are risen with Christ, seek 
the things that are above, where Christ is, on the right hand 
of God." Paul is always exultantly aware that as a Christian 
he is a new man, living in a new age* With Christ's 
resurrection the limits of the old order have been broken 
through. It is an age of miracle, in which nothing is too 
good to be true. The hope of the new age had often 

1 Rom. v. 8-10. 


associated itself with a belief in the emancipation of the 
body from the limitations of physical existence* Mani- 
festly this had not come about for the Christians of the first 
century : they still looked for it to come at the Lord's 
appearing. But Paul held that in principle the Christian, 
whose real self was hid with Christ in God, was already 
delivered from the c< flesh " and living in an age of " glory." 
The " flesh " might indeed be " an unconscionable time 
a-dying," but the actual experience of the new life showed 
that the moral powers of " eternal life " were at work. 
Now in this Paul met half-way a characteristic belief of 
the pagan religious world. It was held possible, by the per- 
formance of certain rites, or the acquisition of certain secret 
knowledge, to become immortal while in the body. There 
was an inward "deification" which ensured everlasting 
life for the initiate after death. Paul made use of this idea, 
while correcting its exclusively metaphysical and sacramental 
bias. For the Greek as indeed in large measure for later 
Christian theology as formed by the Greek mind the 
essential thing was a change of " substance " or metaphysical 
nature j its means, a rite or an esoteric doctrine; and its aim 
and end the assurance of life beyond the grave. For Paul 
the essential thing was a new moral character, as the only 
real evidence of a life akin to the life of God, and its means 
was the receiving of Christ, not by any magical rite, nor by 
assent to a system of doctrine, but in the moral fellowship 
of " faith." The risen life is in the first place a life whose 
fruits are ethical. Prolonged into the future it means 
immortality, because life of that kind, made ethically valuable 
through a personal fellowship, cannot be ended by the death 
of the body. Moral conduct and immortality alike are 
represented as the harvest of an indwelling Spirit. " The 
fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, 
goodness, loyalty, self-control"; "he who sows into the 
Spirit will reap out of the Spirit eternal life." Otherwise 


expressed, the Spirit is " the first instalment of our inherit- 
ance." All that man hopes for as the corporate perfection 
of life is given in principle by that Spirit whose moral 
efficacy is a matter of daily experience to the Christian. 2 
This idea of the Spirit is so vital to Paul's teaching that it will 
be well to make some attempt to see it in its historical 
context of thought. 

In Jewish apocalyptic thought, the expectation of c< the 
life of the coming age," or the Kingdom of God, was 
associated with the idea of the possession of men by the 
divine, or holy, Spirit, which had moved the ancient prophets 
and saints. The possession of the Spirit was conceived as 
bringing a miraculous heightening of the normal powers 
the ability to see things invisible, to hear divine voices, to 
speak mysterious and prophetic words, to heal disease, and 
to dominate the world of matter. After the death of Jesus 
there broke out among His followers phenomena such as 
have frequently been observed in periods of religious exalta- 
tion or " revival." Persons fell into trances in which they 
heard unutterable words spoken, or saw visions of Christ 
and of heavenly beings. The powers of suggestion and of 
suggestibility were greatly intensified, so that morbid cases 
of divided personality ("demon possession") yielded to 
the suggestions of sanity ; and even physical ailments of the 
limbs and bodily organs proved amenable to treatment by 
mental processes. In public gatherings men would be 
moved by a storm of intense feeling to utter cries which, 
though inarticulate, were held to be full of deep meaning, 
perhaps even to be the '* tongues of angels." On a higher 
level they had moments of exceptional insight into truth, 
which they attempted to express in words of " prophecy."3 

2 Gal. v. 22-23, vi. 8, Rom. viii. 23, II Cor. i. 22, v. ;, 
Eph. i. 14, Col. i. 27. 

3 The locus classicus for ' pneumatic * phenomena is I Cor. iii.- 
riv., which elucidates the references to similar phenomena in Acts. 


None of these phenomena were unparalleled or in the strict 
sense miraculous, but to the early Christians it seemed that 
these were the literal fulfilment of the miraculous expecta- 
tions of Apocalyptic. They were valued accordingly, 
as the manifestation of the Messianic Spirit, the gift of the 
new age. The simple followers of Jesus to whom these 
strange things happened were elated by the sense of power 
they brought. They scarcely realized that the real miracle 
was something deeper and greater than all this. Beneath 
the froth of ** revivalism " flowed the steady stream of moral 
life renewed through the inspiration of Jesus Christ in His 
life and death. 

The Gospel went out into the pagan world, where 
the moral background of the original Christian com- 
munity was kcking. The volatile converts of Anatolia 
and Greece hailed with avidity the most exciting and 
spectacular effects of the " revival " fervour. The magical 
and occult has always a fascination. There was grave 
danger that the Gospel would evaporate in a burst of sen- 
sationalism. This danger Paul had to face, and in facing 
it he was driven to apply the cold light of a searching criticism 
to these emotional phenomena in which he himself fully 
shared. The faculty of self-criticism is rare enough any- 
where. It is particularly rare in enthusiasts. Paul 
possessed it, and for that reason he was able to give to the 
Christian community such a sympathetic and convincing 
estimate of spiritual values that the whole idea of the Spirit 
became a new thing. He never thought of denying that 
there was a real value in the visions of glory and the inspired 
utterances which men attributed to the Spirit; but he 
pointed out that these were mere symptoms, and symptoms 
of varying value. For instance, " speaking with tongues," 
or the utterance of emotional cries of no clear meaning, 
was, though more surprising, far less valuable than the clear 
insight into truth which expressed itself in prophecy. But 


greater than all was the moral renewal that the Spirit 
brought. The reality behind all was that sharing of the 
risen life of Christ which reproduced in the believer the 
character of his Lord. 

We have seen that Paul believed in a "life-giving Spirit" 
who all through the ages was the fountain of life to men, 
and was manifested at last in an individual human person, 
Jesus Christ. In accordance with this belief he held the 
Spirit, which the early Church believed it possessed, to be 
no other than Christ Himself, now liberated from the 
necessary limitations of His human life, and entering by 
direct fellowship into the Christian. This did not mean, 
as has been said, ** a certain de-personalizing " of Christ 
On the contrary, it meant the elevation of the idea of Spirit 
from the category of substance to that of personality. To 
have the Spirit does not mean, as it used to mean, that some 
mysterious stream of divine essence is passing into the human 
organism. It means being in the most intimate conceivable 
touch with a Person. There are two sides to Christian 
experience as Paul knows it On the one side it is a life 
of trust and love towards " the Son of God, who loved me 
and gave Himself for me" ; on the other side it is a life 
renewed from within by an immanent Spirit Yet the 
Lord we trust is none other than the indwelling Spirit that 
is the inspirer of our thoughts, our prayers, and our moral 
acts.4 Christ without, our Saviour, Friend, and Guide; 
Christ within, the power by which we live. 

There lies here a deep mystical experience only partially 

4 II Cor. iii. 17, Instead of multiplying references to show 
the identity of Christ's work with that of the Spirit, I would suggest 
to the interested reader that lie should take a Concordance and 
discover for himself how often a statement made about Christ 
in one place can be confronted with a closely similar statement 
made in another place about the Spirit. He should iave no 
difficulty in filling a quarto sheet with such doublets. 


capable of description in words. But is there not a partly 
analogous duality in our deepest relations with one another ? 
You have a friend, dear as your own soul, the very embodi- 
ment of that which you admire and aspire to. Now you 
may sit in the room and converse with your friend, and 
his spoken word, or act, or look, may exert upon you the 
influence of his personality. Or you may be apart and he 
may exert that influence by letter. Or without letter you 
may recall him so vividly that the memory serves as a potent 
source of influence. All this is still the friend without. 
But when once the influence is established, there is a some- 
what abiding in the central places of your own mind which 
is yet not yours but your friend's. You may even be uncon- 
scious of it, but it shows itself in countless ways. Some one 
will remark, " I seemed to hear X. in what you said just 
now " ; or " The way you did that was so exactly X. that 
I could have fancied him here." In some strange way your 
friend has become a part of yourself animus dimidium tu&. 
There is more here than we can readily express ; and perhaps 
it is not altogether different from the double relation of 
Christ to the faithful soul Paul converses with the Lord 
as a man converses with his friend : ** Thrice I besought 
the Lord . . . and He said . . ." But at other times 
" The Spirit of Jesus suffered him not." 5 

The Gospel used to be presented as an appeal to believe 
in the Saviour who " did it all for me long ago," and then 
retired to a remote heaven where He receives the homage of 
believers till He come again to inaugurate the Millennium, 
The mind of our generation, having little comprehension 
or taste for such a message, is usually content to try and dis- 
cover ** the Jesus of history,'* conceived as a human example 
and teacher of a distant past Meanwhile there exists always 
alongside all forms of religious belief the great tradition 
of mystical experience* The mystic knows that whatever 
5 II Cor. xii. 1-9, Ac. xvi. 6-7, cf. I Cor. ii. 16, Gal. L 12. 


be the truth about an historic act or person there is a Spirit 
dwelling in man. In our time even natural science abates 
its arrogant denials and admits the possibility of such 
immanence. The most deeply religious spirits of our time 
tend to take refuge from the uncertainties of belief in an 
inward sense of communion with the divine, which is too 
widely attested in human experience to be easily set aside ; 
and they report that they have no need of an historic 
Christ at all. The weak point of mysticism, as seen at least 
by a matter-of-fact person, is that it is apt to be so nebulous 
ethically. What the Immanent is, those who claim most 
traffic with It can often tell us least. Is It a power making 
for righteousness, or is It a higher synthesis of good and evil ? 
Or is It not a moral that is to say, not a personal Being 
at all ? Does It work " by rapt aesthetic rote," " like a 
knitter drowsed " ? 6 The raising of these questions is not 
intended to throw any doubt upon the validity of mystical 
experience as such ; but we have a right to ask what 
content is given in the experience. Paul was a mystic, 
but all his mystical experience had a personal object. 
It was Jesus Christ, a real, living person historic, 
yet not of the past alone ; divine, yet not alien from 
humanity. The Spirit within was for him continuous with 
the Spirit of Jesus Christ, and recognized by His lineaments. 
To express this fact, Paul coined a new phrase. The 
primitive Christians were accustomed to speak, in language 
which was older than Christianity, of being " in the Spirit," 
as though Spirit were an ethereal atmosphere surrounding 
the soul, and breathed in as the body breathes the air. Paul, 
too, used this expression, but he placed alongside it a parallel 
form of words, " in Christ," or " in Christ Jesus." Where 
we find those words used we are being reminded of the 
intimate union with Christ which makes the Christian life 
an eternal life lived in the midst of time. The deeper 
< Thomas Hardy, The Dynasts 


shade of meaning would often be conveyed to our minds if 
we translated the phrase " in communion with Christ" 

Thus the Imitation of Christ is not an attempt to copy 
His recorded acts and ways of life an attempt which can 
scarcely expect much success, where the conditions of life 
are so different. It means to be " in Christ," to give heed 
to the Christ within, who seeks to propagate in other men 
the truly human life which He once lived in Galilee and 
Jerusalem. The Christ of Nazareth had one life only 
to live between the manger and the cross the life of 
Carpenter, Teacher, and rejected Messiah of the Jews. 
He must live again in countless human lives before He is 
fully Messiah of mankind, in the lives of modern men and 
women placed in a world so different from that which spread 
itself around His village home in ancient Galilee. To 
express this in a satisfying theology is a baffling task : to 
make it a reality in life is a problem solved in surprisingly 
large measure by many simple Christians in all ages, who 
could say with Paul, * 4 For me to live is Christ." The 
truly Christian life is a life not transcribed from the pages of 
the Gospels, but continuous with the divinely human life 
there portrayed, because the genius of the same Artist is at 
work on the new canvas. ** We all reflecting as in a mirror 
the splendour of the Lord, are being transformed into the 
same image (of God), from splendour to splendour, as by 
the working of the Lord the Spirit." 7 

We can trace how in Paul's writings this thought of " the 
Lord the Spirit " dominated the whole range of Christian 
experience. The initiation into the Christian life the 
baptism by which we die and rise again with Christ is 
** baptism in the Spirit," the steeping of the whole being 
in the Spirit of Christ.* This is the true baptism, of which 

7 Phil. i. 21, Gal. ii. 20, iv. 19, II Cor. Si. 12-18, Rom. liii, 
14, Eph. iii. 17. Cf. I Thess. i. 6, 1 Cor. xi. i. 
* I Cor. xii. 13, cf. Gal. iii* 27, Rom. vi. 3. 


the immersion in water is only the effectual sign. It means 
the implanting within our human nature of a divine element, 
present indeed in germ and in potentiality before, but woe- 
fully obscured and frustrated by our participation in the 
wrongness which infects all human society as it is. This 
divine element, freed now and brought to conscious life, 
salutes the Lord and Giver of Life with the acclamation 
" Abba, Father ! " For the Spirit we have received is the 
Spirit of the Son of God, and we possessing it are God's 
sons too, and " that of God in us " leaps out towards the 
God who is the source of it. The Spirit of Jesus within 
us moves us to prayer : indeed, prayer is just that moving of 
God's Son in us towards the Father. Though we are 
burdened with the greatness of our need, so that our prayers 
are not even articulate, yet in such "inarticulate sighs" 
the Spirit " intercedes for us." This gives us the true 
character of all Christian worship. It is an expression of our 
" partnership with God's Son." 9 Whatever outward forms 
it may use or shun Christian worship is the reciprocal 
fellowship of God and His sons. He gives the Spirit, which 
then returns to Him in prayer and adoration. The norm 
and prototype is Christ the Son of God. The lonely 
prayers on Galilaean hills by night, the " exultation in the 
Spirit " when He cried " I thank Thee, Father, Lord of 
heaven and earth," the agonizing supplications of Geth- 
semane " Abba, Father, Thy will be done ! " these 
are re-enacted in His brethren in whom the Spirit prays. 

Therewith comes also a new possibility of knowledge 
of God. There is indeed a natural knowledge of God 
innate in man, but it is, in experience at least, dim and 
lacking in conviction, being mediated by His works. 10 
But to share Christ's Spirit is to be admitted to the secrets of 
God. Perhaps one of the most striking features of the early 

9 Gal. iv. 6-7, Rom. viii. 14-17, I Cor. i. 9; Rom. viii. 26- 
27, EpL vL 1 8. 10 Rom. i. 19-21* 


Christian movement was the re-appearance of a confidence 
that man can know God immediately. Judaism had become 
traditional : the word of the Lord, the Rabbis held, came 
to the prophets of old, but we can only preserve and interpret 
the truth they handed down. Jesus Christ, with a con- 
uJence that to the timid traditionalism of His time 
appeared blasphemous, asserted that He knew the Father 
and was prepared to let others into that knowledge. He did 
so, not by handing down a new tradition about God, but 
by making others sharers in His own attitude to God. 
This is what Paul means by " having the mind of Christ." 
Having that mind, we do know God. It was this 
clear, unquestioning conviction that gave Paul his power 
as a missionary : but he expected it also in his converts, 
To them too "the word of knowledge" came "by 
the same Spirit." He prayed that God would give 
them a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the know- 
ledge of Him. Such knowledge is, as Paul freely grants, 
only partial, but it is real, personal, undeniable know- 
ledge. In friendship between men there is a mutual 
knowledge which is never complete or free from mystery : 
yet you can know with a certainty nothing could shake 
that your friend is " not the man to do such a thing, 97 or 
that such and such a thing that you have heard is "just like 
him." You have a real knowledge which gives you a 
criterion. Such is the knowledge the Christian has of his 

This knowledge of God gives a new ground for the 
ethical life. We have seen that for Paul the " conscience," 
or consciousness of oneself as a moral being, is the court of 
moral judgment Now when a man has received the Spirit 
of Christ, that Spirit enters and inhabits the central place of 

" I Cor. ii., iii. 8, II Cor. z. 3-6, I Thess. i. 5, PHI, 
i. 9-10, Col. ii. 2-3, EpL i. 17, I Cor. viii. 1-3, Gal. iv. 9, 
I Cor. riii. 12. 


his self-consciousness : " he is conscious of himself, not as a 
man merely, but as a son of God, standing in a special 
relation to Jesus Christ. When a moral question arises, it 
takes the form, not " Is this unworthy of myself ? Does it 
hurt my self-respect ? " but " Does this hurt my relation to 
Jesus Christ ? Is it unworthy of Him ? " Not that Jesus 
is referred to as an outside standard : it is " Christ living in 
me " who is the j udge. In this way the Christian approaches 
all practical problems of ethics : he brings the mind of 
Christ to bear on it. This, of course, he cannot do unless 
the mind of Christ is his mind too. That is to say, the 
Christian solution of any difficulty cannot be reached by 
one who disinterestedly and externally examines and com- 
pares the evidence, without being committed to the result 
of his examination. It is revealed to him who lets Christ's 
mind dominate him day by day, and then sees things as they 
appear to that mind. He has thus his ethical standard within 
himself. Here is the real secret of moral emancipation 
In the Gospels we see Jesus taking up a wonderfully detached 
attitude to traditional morality, picking and choosing, 
rejecting and sanctioning, in a way which must have appeared 
bewildering to his contemporaries in a way, indeed, which 
few of His followers really understood. Paul grasped the 
secret of it. Jesus dealt in this sovereign way with the moral 
law because the Spirit of God who gave the law was His 
Spirit : because the inward impulse that shaped His own 
life was the very central impulse of all true morality. He was 
God's Son, and lived in His Father's house ; and the law of 
the family of God was His very nature. In all this the 
Christian is a " partner of the Son of God." ** He who has 
the Spirit judges all things, and is judged by no one." The 
principle of moral autonomy could not be more strenuously 
asserted.^ And Paul's willingness to trust the autonomy of 

12 Rom. ix. i, I Cor. viii. 12. 

13 I Cor. ii. 15, iv. 3-5. 


others is often really touching,^ though we need not seek 
to excuse his occasional attempts at a dictation which was 
really not consistent with his principles. 

Here we have Paul's sufficient justification against those 
who accused him of antinomianism or a relaxing of moral 
standards. The moral demand of letting Christ's Spirit 
rule you In everything is far more searching than the demand 
of any code, and at the same time it carries with it the 
promise of indefinite growth and development. It means 
that every Christian is a centre of fermentation where the 
morally revolutionary Spirit of Christ attacks the dead mass 
of the world. Ethical originality is the prerogative of the 
Christian whose conscience Is the seat of Christ's indwelling : 
and such originality is imperative for a world which is 
"saved in hope," a world which needs progress. The 
seeming extreme individualism of this doctrine is corrected 
by the doctrine of the Body to which we shall come 
presently : but for the moment let us do full justice to 
Paul's claim of autonomy for the Christ-inspired conscience. 
It is a claim we must press with all our might in a world 
where belief in regimentation is strong and growing. In 
relation to the existing world-orders, in so far as they are 
based on the violent assertion of authority, serious Christianity 
is anarchism. It does indeed reverence authority in so 
far as that authority is " an agent of God for good," but it 
obeys God rather than man, and, in the last resort, with 
Paul, "cares not a rap for the judgment of any human 
tribunal" *5 

The indwelling of Christ's Spirit means not only moral 
discernment, but moral power. Paul's count against the 
Law is that it was impotent through the flesh. Against 
this impotence Paul sets the ethical competence of the 

X 4 See especially Phil. iii. 15-16, which a false reading repre- 
sented by the A.V. has changed into a plea for uniformity ! 
X S Rom. xiii. r, 4; I Cor. iv. 3. 


Spirit ** I can do anything in Him who makes me strong," 
he exclaims. For his friends in Asia he prays " that 
God may grant you, according to the wealth of His splen- 
dour, to be made strong with power through His Spirit in 
the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your hearts through 
your trust in Him."** This is the antithesis of the dismal 
picture presented in the seventh chapter of the Epistle to 
the Romans, and it comes, just as evidently as that, out of 
experience. Indeed, we may say that the thing above al! 
which distinguished the early Christian community from 
its environment was the moral competence of its members. 
In order to maintain this we need not idealize unduly the 
early Christians. There were sins and scandals at Corinth 
and Ephesus, but it is impossible to miss the note of genuine 
power of renewal and recuperation the power of the 
simple person progressively to approximate to his moral ideals 
in spite of failures. The very fact that the term " Spirit " 
is used points to a sense of something essentially " super- 
natural" in such ethical attainment. For the primitive 
Christians the Spirit was manifested in what they regarded 
as miraculous. Paul does not whittle away the miraculous 
sense when he transfers it to the moral sphere. He con- 
centrates attention on the moral miracle as something 
more wonderful far than any " speaking with tongues." So 
fully convinced is he of the new and miraculous nature 
of this moral power that he can regard the Christian as a 
" new creation." This is not the old person at all : it is a 
"new man," a created in Christ Jesus for good deeds." J 7 

The result of all this is that the Christian is a free 
man. It is here to be observed that the term "free- 
dom" is ambiguous in common usage* It is some- 

16 Phil, iv.13, EpL iii. 14-19, 1 Cor. i. 18, 24, ir. 20, Rom. 3. 
1 6, II Cor. rii. 9-10, xiii. 3-4. 

*7 II Cor. v. 17 (cf. I Cor. iv. 15), EpL ii. 10, iv. 24, Col. iii. 
1, Rom. iii. 2. 


times used to imply that a man can do just as he likes, 
undetermined by any external force. To this the de- 
terminist replies that as a matter of fact this freedom 
is so limited by the laws which condition man's empirical 
existence as to be illusory. The rej oinder from the advocates 
of free will is that no external force can determine a man's 
moral conduct (and with mere automatism we are not con- 
cerned), unless it is presented in consciousness, and that in 
being so presented it becomes a desire, or a temptation, or a 
motive. In suffering himself to be determined by these the 
man is not submitting to external control, but to something 
which he has already made a part of himself for good or ilL 
When, however, we have said that, we are faced with a 
further problem. Not all that is desired is desirable, and 
in being moved by my immediate desire I may be balking 
myself of that ultimate satisfaction which is the real object 
of all effort. If that is so, then to " do as I like " may well 
be no freedom at all. There is a law of our being which 
forbids satisfaction to be found along that line, as it is written, 
" He gave them their desire, and sent leanness into their 
souk" He, then, whose action is governed by mere desire 
is not free to attain the satisfaction which alone gives 
meaning to that desire. There is no breaking through 
this law of our being. Every attempt to do so proves 
itself in experience to be futile. Hence we are in a more 
hopeless state of bondage than that which materialistic 
determinism holds ; for the tyrant is established within 
our own consciousness. One way, and one way only, 
out of this bondage remains. If we can discover how to 
make our own immediate desire, and the act of will springing 
out of it, accord with the supreme law of our being, then 
to "do as we like'* will no longer be to run our heads 
against the stone wall of necessity which shuts us out from 
the heaven of satisfaction. For we shall only " like " doing 
what we " ought." This introduces a new sense of the 


word "freedom." It does not now mean freedom from 
restraint to follow our desires, but freedom from the tyranny 
of futile desires to follow what is really good. 

This is Paul's meaning. The state of slavery described 
in the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans is a 
slavery to wrong desires ; not merely to " flesh " in the 
abstract, as implying our material nature and environment, 
but to the " mind of the flesh " the lower nature and 
environment made a part of one's conscious self. The 
slavery is the more intense because there is the Reason or 
Conscience recognizing the ideal of true satisfaction, and 
chafing more and more at its impotence to resist. What 
the Law could not do, God has done by the gift of the 
Spirit of Christ : He has given the victory to the higher 
self. " Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty," 
" The Law of the Spirit the law of a life in communion 
with Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin 
and death." Whereas life was a hopeless struggle, in which 
the higher self was handicapped against a foe that had all the 
advantage, it now becomes a struggle in which the handicap 
is removed, and victory already secured in principle, because 
God has come into the life. The Law was external j it 
was a taskmaster set over against the troubled and fettered 
will of man. The Spirit is within, the mind of the Spirit 
is the mind of the man himself, and from within works 
out a growing perfection of life which satisfies the real 
longing of the soul. In the full sense freedom is still an 
object of hope ; but the liberty already attained makes 
possible the building up of a Christian morality 



FROM Paul's teaching about the Spirit of Christ flows 
naturally a thought in which we may find the consummation 
of his work. Where many individuals share an experience 
so intimate as the " partnership of the Son of God " there 
must be a very intimate unity among them. Moved and 
governed by the same Spirit, they are one at the deepest 
levels of life. The new life in Christ, while it rests upon 
a most intensely individual experience, is yet a life in which 
no man is a mere individual. He is a member of Christ's 
Body. We may recall that for Paul "body" meant a 
real organic identity such as that which makes a man a 
single self-identical individual through all the changes of 
the years. Wherever Christ's Spirit is at work, there is 
His body ; and He has only one body. Thus the immense 
varieties of spiritual activity are only aspects of the one life, 
analogous to the functions of various organs in a living 
body hand, eye, ear. Each is necessary to all, and each 
gets its significance only from its place in the whole. There 
is one Spirit, and therefore through the whole area of the 
human race there can only be one body. Here the evolu- 
tion of monotheism reaches its necessary conclusion. 
" There are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit ; and there 
are varieties of services, but the same Lord ; and there are 

varieties of activities, but the same God, who is the source 



of all activity in us all." " There is one body and one 
Spirit . . . one God and Father of all, who is above all, 
and through all, and in all." 1 This drawing of the last 
inference from the development of a great religious principle 
is a signal contribution of Paul to social philosophy. The 
Stoics had already reached a doctrine of the unity of man. 
Here, as in other points, Paul stands right in the midst of 
wide streams of thought. But it may be observed that the 
Stoic doctrine was worked out wholly within a system of 
naturalistic Pantheism, and suffered from the limitations 
which such a philosophy involves. Paul's Christian doc- 
trine of the unity of man has its centre in a moral self- 
revelation of the one God, knitting together all men who 
will accept a moral and personal relation to Him. 

So much for the theory of the matter. But important as 
was Paul's theoretical contribution, it was not a mere 
matter of theory. It represents the actual experience of the 
early days of Christianity. When a number of individuals 
with varying and even dashing interests have been caught 
by a revolutionary force which has made some one new 
interest mean more to each than any of his previous interests, 
then a new unity is inevitably created. This is what 
actually happened to the early Christians. The fact of 
Christ and His dealing with them became more important 
to each than any other fact of his experience. The separate 
interests of master and slave, man and woman, Jew and 
Gentile, man of culture and barbarian, faded into nothing 
before the absorbing feet which made each of these a Chris- 
tian. Christ lived in each, and therefore the life of all was 
one. 3 One of Paul's great words is that which is variously 
translated "communion" or ** fellowship." The Greek 
word is koinonia, which was originally a commercial term 
implying co-partnership or common possession. Thus in 

1 I Cor. rii., Rom. iii. 4-5, EpL iv, 1-16, Col. i. 18-29, 
* Gal. iii. 26-28, Col. iii. u, I Cor. iii. 13. 


the Gospels the sons of Zebedee and of John are said to have 
been foinonai, or partners, in a kind of joint-stock company 
owning fishing-boats. This word seemed to the early 
Christians the most appropriate term to describe their 
relations one to another. They were co-partners in a 
great estate the splendid spiritual " heritage" in which 
they were "joint-heirs with Christ." The ground of 
their corporate life was what they called "partnership of 
the Spirit" a joint-ownership in all that was most real 
and vital to them all. Our liturgical phrase "the com- 
munion of the Holy Ghost " curiously obscures the vividness 
of the original words, as Paul passed them down to us. 3 

Here, then, as Paul saw with a sudden clearness of vision^ 
was in actual being that holy commonwealth of God for 
which the ages waited. Here was a community created not 
by geographical accident or by natural heredity, not based 
on conquest, or wealth, or government, but coming into 
existence by the spontaneous outburst of a common life in 
a multitude of persons. The free, joyous experience of 
the sons of God had created a family of God, inseparably 
one in Him : " one person in Christ Jesus." 

This is not to say that all distinctions between men are 
blurred in a dull uniformity. For the irrelevant distinctions 
of class, race, and nationality, which set men in hostility, 
are substituted those differentiations of function which bind 
men together in a co-operative commonwealth. Paul 
had much ado to induce his Greek converts, born 
individualists as they were, to give full play to this unity 
in difference. The Corinthians made even the varied 
endowments of the Christian life matters of competition 
and rivalry. They had no criterion of worth, but judged 
a man's gifts solely by their "rarity value." Paul bade 

3 The following passages will illustrate the significance of 
KOLvuvla. : II Cor. i. 7, cf. Phil, iii. 10 and Rom. viii. 17 ; Phm. 6, 
cf. 17 ; I Cor. x. 16-21 ; I Cor. i. 9, II Cor. xiii. 13 ; Phil. ii. i. 


them apply a new test : the up-building of the body. We 
have seen how Paul criticized the " revival " phenomena of 
the early period. This was the test by which he judged 
them. " Speaking with tongues '* was of small value : it 
profited no one but the individual. " Prophecy " was of 
greater value : it benefited the community. The endow- 
ment of the Christian was an endowment for service ; the 
variety of endowments pointed to an organism with a 
variety of functions. Since the endowments came from the 
Lord the Spirit, it was He alone who could give meaning and 
reality to the whole. It was as His Body that the whole 
community functioned.4 Pursuing this line of thought, 
Paul was led to see that the gifts and endowments which 
are of vital importance are the moral virtues, and above 
all, love, which is " the perfect link." This divine love 
or charity is the subject of Paul's famous lyrical passage 
in the thirteenth chapter of his First Epistle to the 
Corinthians. It is the highest and most comprehensive 
gift of the Spirit. " The love of God is shed abroad in our 
hearts by the Holy Spirit given to us." 5 

Thus the highest category of Christian ethics is deduced 
by Paul directly from the experience of the indwelling 
Spirit of Christ, and we may find in the fact a confirmation 
of the reality of his claim to guidance by Christ's Spirit ; 
for the central thing in the teaching of Jesus is His 
enthronement of love to God and man as the supreme and 
sufficient kw of human conduct. Paul is moving in 
different regions of thought, yet emerges at the same point ; 
and when he claims that in spite of the manifest differences 
of the route his guide to the goal has been Christ Himself, 
we must allow that his claim has reason. Love, then, is 
the sum-total of moral obligation : " Be under no obligation 

4 I Cor. rii. 4-1 r, 28-31, ziv. 1-5, Rom. lii. 6-8, Eph. iv. 

5 Col. iii. 14-15, Rom. v. 5, Gal. v. 6. 


to anyone except the obligation of love. For love is the ful- 
filment of law.'* It is a creative principle of society, the 
actual force which builds and keeps in being the mystical 
body of emancipated humanity, the " Israel of God." It 
is the groundwork of the new " Law of Christ " or " Law 
of the Spirit."* 

Here we find the necessary and sufficient correction 
to the individualism of Paul's ethic of the Spirit. The 
sense of a supernatural intuition of God and His will, 
independent of tradition or the mediation of any authority, 
is apt, if taken alone, to strengthen individual self-reliance 
to a morbid degree. It "puffs up," says Paul. But if 
the revealing spirit is the Spirit of Christ, then also it is the 
Spirit of love, and "while knowledge pufis up, love builds 
up " ; builds up, not the character of the individual being 
we do less than justice to Paul if we so interpret him 
but builds up the commonwealth of God into an ordered 
and organic whole. 7 

As the initiation of the Christian life, that " immersion 
in one Spirit " in which the believer died and rose again with 
Christ, had its proper symbol in the rite of baptism, so also 
the fellowship of the Body of Christ had its symbol in the 
"Lord's Supper." From the beginning the Christian 
communities had their common meal, the "breaking of 
bread," and although we have not any explicit account of 
the meaning which before Paul's time was attached to the 
custom, yet the primitive record states that the Lord at His 
last meal with His disciples broke bread, saying "This is My 
body "5 and His followers can hardly have continued to 
break the bread without some recollection of His words, or 
without attaching some special meaning to them. For 
Paul, at any rate, the breaking of the bread which Christ 
had called His body was " a sharing in the Body of Christ " : 

* Rom. xin. 8-10, Gal. v, 13-14, vi. 2. 
7 I Cor, viii. i, cf. EpL iv. 16. 


" because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, 
for we all share in the one loaf*" 8 In order to understand 
what Paul meant to say by that, we must remember how 
absolutely seriously he took the thought that the life of the 
Christian is the life of Christ. As the " soul," or principle 
of life (psyche) animates the body of flesh, so the Spirit (of 
Christ) animates the community. When bread is eaten, the 
virtue of it passes into all the members of the body. So in 
receiving Christ, the Body, which is the community, nourishes 
all its several members and they are inseparably one in the 
sharing of the common life. 

There is behind this a deep mystical thought resem- 
bling that of the higher mystery cults of the Greeks, 
in which the sacred food of the God was eaten, and 
the worshipper became one with Him. But Paul will 
not let the matter rest at that quasi-magical level at 
which the mere consumption of consecrated elements by 
itself sufficed to work some mystic change. The reality 
underlying the meal is Christ's impartation of Himself in 
His Spirit to His people. But that Spirit is love. If love 
be not an actual and effectual force in the gathering of 
believers, then the form is utterly empty and has no value. 
When at Corinth the Christians came together in a selfish 
and individualist spirit, they were not eating the Lord's 
Supper, but their own. There were quarrels and rivalries. 
The rich feasted in luxury; the poor looked on and 
hungered, and the rich despised them. Under these con- 
ditions, says Paul, it was quite impossible to eat a true 
a Supper of the Lord." It was useless to take the bread 
and say, cc This is the Lord's Body," when you did not 
" discern the Body " the unity which His Spirit creates 
among those who have the love of God shed abroad in their 
hearts. For the Supper was also a solemn memorial of the 
dying of Christ, and of all that the dying meant It 
* I Cor. i. 1 6-2 1, xi. 17-34- 


reminded the partakers that they were crucified with 
Christ dead to the evil passions of the unsanctified heart, 
its selfishness and greed. The cup of wine was a participa- 
tion in Christ's sacrifice the blood of the new covenant. 
The Supper is therefore more than an ordinary community- 
meal, and more also than the consuming of sacred food 
which brings magical potency with it : it is the current 
renewal of a union with Christ both in His death and in 
His risen life, and so a repeated " crucifixion of the flesh 
with the affections and lusts," and a repeated constitution 
of Christ's Body in the renewal of mutual love through His 

In this Bodv of Christ Paul sees ** the ecclesia of God." 


Ecclesia is a Greek word with a splendid history. It 
was used in the old free commonwealths of Greece for the 
general assembly of all free citizens, by which their common 
life was governed. When political liberty went, the 
name still survived in the restricted municipal self-govern- 
ment which the Roman State allowed. It was taken over 
by the brotherhoods and guilds which in some measure 
superseded the old political associations. Among the 
Jews who spoke Greek this word seemed the appropriate 
one to describe the commonwealth of Israel as ruled by 
God the historical Theocracy. Our translation of 
it is "Church." That word, however, has undergone 
such transformations of meaning that it is often doubtful 
in what sense it is being used. Perhaps for ecclesia we 
may use the word, simpler, more general, and certainly 
nearest to its original meaning ** commonwealth." We 
have spoken throughout of the Divine Commonwealth. 
That phrase represents Paul's " ecclesia of God." 9 It is a 
community of loving persons, who bear one another's 
burdens, who seek to build up one another in love, who 

9 I Cor. i. 2, i. 32, XL 22, nr. 9, II Cor. i. r, Gal. i. 13 ; c 
GaL ri. 16. 


" have the same thoughts in relation to one another that 
they have in their communion with Christ." 10 It is all 
this because it is the living embodiment of Christ's own 
Spirit. This is a high and mystical doctrine, but a doctrine 
which has no meaning apart from loving fellowship in real 
life. A company of people who celebrate a solemn sacra- 
ment of Christ's Body and Blood, and all the time are 
moved by selfish passions rivalry, competition, mutual 
contempt is not for Paul a Church or Divine Common- 
wealth at all, no matter how lofty their faith or how deep 
their mystical experience ; for all these things may " puff 
up "; love alone " builds up." 

In the very act, therefore, of attaining its liberty to exist, 
the Divine Commonwealth has transcended the great 
divisions of men. In principle it has transcended them 
all, and by seriously living out that which its association 
means, it is on the way to comprehending the whole race. 
Short of that its development can never stop. This is the 
revealing of the sons of God for which the whole creation 
is waiting. 

10 Phil. ii. 5 : that this, rather than the common translation, 
correctly renders the Greek original, I am convinced. 



PAUL, as a Pharisee, was supremely concerned with conduct, 
for in Judaism not orthodoxy but correctness of conduct 
was the test of a religious man. The standard of conduct 
was external and confused trivialities of ritual with the 
** weighter matters of the Law." But conduct was the 
all-important thing. When Paul became a Christian he 
did not lose his interest in practical religion. In his 
greatest theological epistle the high argument reaches a 
climax when with " therefore^ my brothers, I urge 
you . . " he turns to show how the sum and substance 
of the whole is moral holiness in practical life. 1 

In the ethical teaching he gives we must think 
of him as a missionary seeking to train a Christian 
community in the midst of a heathen society. He 
could not, and would not, do so by any attempt to 
impose a rigid code governing all behaviour. His aim 
was to see "Christ formed in them." He wished to 
see them enter into that self-determining life of fellowship 
with Christ which means emancipation of the spirit of man. 
That life of fellowship with Christ means also membership 
of a body. From these two principles the Spirit of Christ 
in the individual, the Spirit of Christ creating the body 
all morality must spring by the pure and free submission 

1 Rom. li. 33-xii. 2. 


of individuals to the leading of that Spirit All that Paul 
could do was to set forth by way of example the kind of 
way in which such leading tended for people situated as his 
correspondents were situated in the Roman world. In its 
particulars his ethical teaching embodies a good deal of the 
new morality which contemporary Stoicism was proclaiming, 
as well as of the humaner Jewish morals of the tradition of 
Jesus ben Sirach and the " Wisdom" literature. The wise 
moral teacher will express the ideals he wishes to promulgate 
as far as possible in terms already appreciated by his hearers* 
But the unity of the whole depends upon an informing spirit 
It is the character of Christ which makes it a whole. " I 
urge you by virtue of the meekness and sweet-reasonable- 
ness of Christ " ; " Bear one another's burdens, and so 
fulfil the law of Christ " 5 " whatever you do, in act 
or word, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus**: 
when Paul uses such language it is more than a form 
of words. a It represents a settled and reasonable con- 
viction, first that where there is knowledge of good 
among men it is the work of Christ the life-giving Spirit, 
and secondly that now that Christ has lived the human life 
we have a clear line of definition, a test for all our moral 
intuitions. In the whole of Paul's moral teachings a 
single and self-consistent ideal is implied, and that ideal 
in the character of Jesus Christ. If we take as the vital 
centre of Pauline ethics the poem of love in the thirteenth 
chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, we shall 
not be wrong in recognizing in it a portrait for which 
Christ Himself has sat. What Paul was trying to do was 
to show how a man would live if Christ were living in him, 
at Corinth, at Ephesus, at Rome, in the reign of Nero. 

There were certain things which he would avoid as a 
matter of course : they were forbidden by the best con- 
science of heathendom. Indeed, the catalogues of vices 
* II Cor. x. i, Gal. vi. 2, Col. iii, 17. 


which Paul gives correspond fairly closely with those of 
contemporary moralists. He generally groups them broadly 
into two classes : sins of the flesh, of lust and appetite, and 
anti-social vices, especially the commercial vices, summed 
up as "greed" or "over-reaching" pleonexia.l I say "as 
a matter of course " : and such it was for Paul, but not 
for his converts. We are startled to find gross unchastity at 
Corinth, theft at Ephesus, drunkenness at both. The fact 
is that Paul had addressed himself to an audacious enter- 
prise in calling into the Church the very riff-raff of 
society. If we ask how this man brought up in a 
narrowly pietistic Puritan sect reached such faith in 
human nature, we remember that he was a follower of 
the Friend of publicans and sinners and find the answer 
there. But that these evil things must go he never 
doubted 5 and he assailed them in a steady confidence 
that Christ had given the victory. 

Over against these vices Paul does not set any merely 
negative asceticism. He does not correct unchastity by 
demanding monkish celibacy, or avarice by insisting on 
Franciscan poverty, or drunkenness by erecting total 
abstinence into a law. In the Epistle to the Colossians he 
blazes out against the asceticism of certain circles as a denial 
of the supremacy of Christ over all creation and of the 
freedom of the Christian man. ** All things are yours; 
and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's," is his broad 
principle.4 His doctrine of "mortification" 5 is something 
far rempvcd from that of subsequent Catholicism : it is not 
the ascetic discipline which is a kind of reversed self- 
pampering, but the complete dissociation of oneself from 
all selfish, self-regarding, self-protecting impulses, and the 

3 Rom. i. 24-32, I Cor. v. 10-11, II Cor. iii. 20, Gal. v 
19-21, Col. Si. 5-8. 

4 Col. ii. 16-23, I Cor. iii. 21-23, x. 23-26, 

5 Col. iii. 5 sqq. 


readiness to accept the consequences of that dissociation in 
loss, contumely, persecution or hardship to body or soul. In 
his First Epistle to the Corinthians there is a passage which 
affords an interesting study in the light of this. 6 Its 
conclusion is perhaps the most " ascetic " passage in Paul : 
and the context merits examination. The point at issue 
is Paul's refusal to take money for his sen-ices. It was the 
custom of wandering preachers of the Cynic, Stoic, and other 
sects to receive gifts from their hearers. Jesus Christ 
had sanctioned the expectation of hospitality on the part of 
His followers : and Peter at least seems to have interpreted 
this as including maintenance for his wife. " All quite 
right and proper," says Paul ; " but I personally should 
find it a hindrance. I prefer to bear my own burden. 
Similarly I am prepared to yield even the liberty which 
I claim for every Christian 5 I am ready to put myself 
beside weak-minded persons and accept restrictions which 
they consider necessary. I am prepared to give up any- 
thing which interferes with the success of my mission, as 
the athlete surrenders what would incapacitate him for 
running, and if * brother ass, the body * 7 protests so 
much the worse for brother ass ! But I am bringing brother 
ass to heel : he shall not balk me in the end." If that is 
asceticism, then Paul is an ascetic. He has got work to 
do which must be done, and that work is his consuming 
passion. As the boxer trains hard and the racer runs light, 
so he will drop what hinders him from pressing towards 
*ihc mark. That is different from the timid " touch not, 
taste not, handle not," of the Colossian ascetics, and from 
the later ecclesiastical prohibitions and restraints. 

On one point, however, Paul seems untrue to himself. 
A little later, we learn there were ascetics at Ephesus who 

6 I Cor. ix. 

7 I have ventured to make Paul speak the language of Francis : 
neither, I think, would object ! 


taught abstention from marriage, and probably claimed 
Paul's sanction. 8 If so, he had only himself to blame.9 For 
himself he deemed the renunciation of family life necessary 
for his mission, though he had as much right to marry as 
Peter, James, and the rest. So far, so good : but when he 
wished others, not engaged in mission work, to follow his 
example, and suggested that marriage was a pis aller^ he 
was on less safe ground. There is much to be said for Sir 
William Ramsay's view that Paul was concerned in the first 
instance to maintain his right to be a bachelor if his work 
demanded it To the normal Jew there was something 
eccentric, if not worse, about celibacy, and among the 
Greeks the man who did not marry was " asking for " 
scandal. Paul set out to claim that a full, pure, and 
honourable life could be lived, and by some must be 
lived, outside marriage. But he was carried away, as 
so many people are, into proving too much. We 
shall do best to hold him fast, in this matter and 
on the whole question of the relations of the sexes, 
to his more humane and truly Christian teaching that 
while in Christ there is neither male nor female, the pure 
love of man and wife is a sacrament of the divine love of 
Christ, and the marriage relation which it consecrates is 
indissoluble. 10 

The frontal attack on evil living is not by way of ascetic 
regulations, but by a steady appeal to the new life in Christ. 
Thus, he writes to the Christians of Salonica : Ir 

u God called us, not for an impure life, but into a life of 
holiness. And so any one who neglects (this calling) neglects 
not man but God who gives to us His Holy Spirit. About love 
for the brotherhood, again, there is no need for me to write to 

s I Tim. iv. 3. 9 I Cor. vii. 

10 Gal, iii. 28, Eph. v. 21-33, I Cor. vii. xo-ii. 
" I Thess. iv. 7-12. 


you, for you yourselves are taught by God to love one another ; 
and indeed you act accordingly towards all the brothers in all 
Macedonia. But I beg you, my brothers, to do still better (in 
this direction), and to take pains to lead a quiet life, to mind your 
own business, and to work with your own hands, as I told you ; 
so that your conduct may be respectable in the eyes of outsiders, 
and that there may be no destitution among you." 

There is sound sense in these injunctions to an excitable 
and unsteady people. Here and everywhere Paul impresses 
us with his readiness to trust the Christian impulse and 
illumination in his very fallible converts. Again and again 
he echoes the appeal of Jesus, " Why do ye not even of 
yourselves judge that which is right ? " And from the 
same root grows as of necessity the whole new life. " The 
fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, 
goodness, loyalty, self-control." *3 

But further, the Spirit is a corporate possession and 
not a merely individual. There is a "partnership of 
the Spirit." That fact given full play creates from a 
new centre the whole ethical life. In the twelfth 
chapter of the Epistle to the Romans we see the 
Christian ethic growing out of the thought of the claim 
of the body upon each of its members. The Epistle to 
the Ephesians supplies the fullest working out of this.^ 
It is interesting to survey this broad sketch of Christian 
community-life and observe how at each stage there 
is an appeal to the central principles of life "in 
Christ." Speak the truth for we are members one of 
another. Let the thief stop thieving, let him work 
hard in order that he may have something to bring into 
the common store. Mutual regard must take the place 
of envy, hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness, "as 

" Lk. xii. 57. 13 Gal. v. 22-23. 

J 4 Eph, iv. 25-vi. 9. CoL iii. 5-iv. 6 goes over much the 
same ground. 


Christ loved you and sacrificed Himself for you." Injuries 
must be blotted out by forgiveness " as God in Christ for- 
gave you." " The Kingdom of Christ and God " rules 
out alike unchastity and avarice or the idolatry of Mammon. 
Mutual subjection is the rule. This begins in the family, 
where the relation of husband and wife is a " mystery " or 
sacrament of the relation of Christ and His Church. Parents 
and children have mutual duties and responsibilities " in the 
Lord." Slaves must give obedience "as Christ's slaves 
doing the will of God," and masters must " do j ust the same " 
to the slaves, because masters too are slaves of Christ 
What we need to observe here is the conception of mutual 
responsibility founded on an identical relation to Christ. 
Paul has taken over the framework of the household as known 
to Greek, Roman, and Jewish law : the housefather as 
supreme lord and disposer of his wife, his children and his 
slaves. But in doing so he has introduced a revolutionary 
principle which was bound to transform the whole concep- 
tion. In regard to slavery Christianity brought reinforce- 
ments to Stoicism in the protest it was making against 
that deep-rooted institution. Its attack was made from a 
different side. Stoicism started in the main from the natural 
unity and equality of men, and showed that slavery as an 
institution was illogical. Christianity started from the slave 
himself as a son of God, and so a " brother for whom 
Christ died." It did not at the outset say that the institu- 
tion was indefensible. It introduced a new attitude to the 
slave as a man. This new attitude is well illustrated from 
the letter which Paul wrote to his friend Philemon of 
Colossse. He had lost a slave, Onesimus, who had run 
away with money belonging to his master. By some means 
Paul came in touch with the slave, and brought him to a 
better mind. He induced him to return to his master, 
with a letter from Paul. In this letter he wrote : " I 
beg you for my son Onesimus, born to me in my prison. 


A * good-for-nothing ' he was once, but now he is good for 
much, both to me and to you. I have sent him back to 
you as though I sent you my own heart. ... It may be 
that he was separated from you for a time for this reason, 
that you might get him back no longer as a slave, but some- 
thing better than a slave, a dear brother dear certainly 
to me, and surely dearer far to you, both by natural relations 
and in (communion with) the Lord." There is here 
a transforming power which goes deeper even than the 
splendid humanism of the Stoics. We may recall that even 
Epictetus, one of the noblest of them, could dissuade a 
man from punishing a slave in the words " It is better 
for your slave to be bad than for you to make yourself 
unhappy." *5 

Passing beyond the household we have the growing 
community. In pre-Roman times the Greek city-state 
had formed a real community, where the individual was 
conscious of having his part in the u general will." The 
system had collapsed, and for all the elaborate organization 
of the Empire with its local and central government there 
was no real community wherein a man could find that 
whole-hearted fellowship with others in common con- 
cerns which is necessary to a full life. A similar 
problem faces us to-day, and provokes the various 
schemes of Syndicalism and the "Soviet" idea. The 
result in the Roman Empire was the formation of 
religious and semi-religious guilds, of which the central 
government was perpetually jealous, which it tried time and 
time again to cripple but never dared utterly to destroy. The 
Christian Church was the biggest attempt to create a real 
community within the amorphous society of the Roman 
world. In large measure it succeeded, because it based 
itself upon a real experience of fellowship founded upon 
a free and personal relation to a " Lord " whose character 
X 5 Enchiridion, zii. I. 


was definite and known & personal relation which was 
one of " faith " or complete confidence. We see the 
conception of mutual responsibility working itself out in 
the community. l6 

" We urge you, brothers, give good advice to the disorderly^ 
console the timorous, hold the weak by the hand, and be patient 
with everybody," 

Each member must have something worth bringing 
into the common store. X 7 

" For just as we have many organs in one body, and these organs 
have not all the same function, so we, many as we are, constitute 
one body in (communion with) Christ, while we are individually 
organs of one another. And so, since we have different gifts, 
corresponding to God's graciousness shown to us, if the gift 
be inspired preaching, let us preach up to the full measure of 
our conviction ; if it be administration, (let us throw ourselves) 
into administration ; if it be teaching, into teaching ; if it be 
the encouragement of others, into encouragement ; a man who 
gives should do it open-heartedly, one who takes the lead, with 
energy, one who does a kindness, with cheerfulness." 

And this applies to material as well as spiritual things. The 
principle is enunciated by Paul quite incidentally. During 
the central portion of his career as a missionary he set on 
foot a great scheme by which he hoped to promote that 
unity between Jewish and Gentile Christians which was 
one of his dearest aims. The Christian community in 
Judaea was in great poverty, from various causes, including 
famine and probably persecution. Paul projected an exten- 
sive Relief Fund, to which all his communities of converts 
from paganism should contribute as a mark of brotherly 
love, and also as some acknowledgment of the real debt 
which they owed to the first promulgators of the Christian 
feith. The latter point Paul puts to the Romans in these 
terms : l8 

16 I Thess. v. 14. J 7 Rom. xii. 4-8. *8 R om . xv. 26-27. 


" Macedonia and Achaia have decided to make a * sharing-out * 
{koinonla) for the poor among the Holy Community at Jerusalem. 
They decided and indeed it was their bare duty ; for if the 
pagans shared in " (the verb is koinonerz) " their spiritual possessions, 
it is only fair that they should help the Jews with their material 

It is almost impossible to reproduce in English the play 
upon the world koinonia which makes it clear tha the 
" partnership " of Christians is a partnership in material 
goods as well as in spiritual. Here is a basis for a far- 
reaching Christian communism. Hence the motive Paul 
suggests for work, which is capable of a wider 
and more fruitful application. Paul, we may observe, 
brought into Greek society, with its affected contempt for 
the " vulgarity " of all handiwork, the healthier Jewish 
tradition of respect for the craftsman. But observe the 
motive : cc A man should labour with his hands, that he 
may have something to give to him who has need," J 9 
In other words, Work not for gain, but to enrich the 
community, Mr. Bernard Shaw's dictum, " Do your 
work for love and let the other people lodge and feed and 
clothe you for love," is an equally good, if rough, 
expression for the teaching of Paul as it is for that of 

The interaction of the two principles of individual 
autonomy and mutual responsibility is well illustrated 
by Paul's dealing with some questions of casuistry which 
arose out of the clash of different races and cultures in the 
Church. At Corinth a difficulty arose about the eating of 
food which had received a pagan consecration. The diffi- 
culty could not be avoided. If you belonged to any sort 
of social club or trade guild, you could not go to the mem- 
bers' dinner without having food over which a pagan " grace 

X 9 EpL iv. 28. ao Preface to AndrocUs and the Lion. 


before meat " had been said. If you dined out with friends, 
the same thing might happen. And anyhow, you never 
knew but that the meat you bought at the butcher's had 
done duty in some sacrifice. In the Forum of Pompeii, 
indeed, the chapel of the Divine Emperor stands between 
the place of slaughter and the butcher's shop. The 
close connexion of sacrifice with the sale of meat is 
clear. Here was a strange dilemma for a person who 
believed that such a consecration brought demonic influence 
into the food. The Jew, then as now, would not touch 
such " unclean " meat. The conscience of the primitive 
Church was equally tender about it. 31 No wonder, then, 
that many at Corinth felt in the same way. But others, 
inspired by Paul's teaching, said : " No, an idol is nothing 
in the world 5 there is nothing in it." And they freely 
and openly ate the consecrated food, to the great scandal 
of the "weak-minded brother." "Everything is lawful" 
was their watchword. Had not Christ " made all meats 
clean " ? Paul retorts : " Everything may be lawful ; but 
not everything builds up (the community). It is not every- 
one who has this robust faith, and if a weaker-minded 
brother follows your lead and eats, in the ineradicable 
belief that he is incurring defilement, you have injured his 
conscience, and you are responsible for him."" A similar 
difficulty arose at Rome over Sabbath-keeping and vege- 
tarianism, and Paul deals with it similarly : All days are 
alike ; all foods are legitimate ; but if your faith does not 

a* Acts x, 11-14. The teaching of Jesus in ML vii. 14-1; 
had evidently not been assimilated. The following verses in Ml. 
may represent (by a device he adopts elsewhere), under the form 
of a private explanation, the process by which the early Christians 
came to understand the meaning of their Master's teaching upon 
this point. 

33 I Cor. viii. 1-13, r. 14-31. la the opening of the dis- 
cussion, the words " We know that we all have knowledge," 
and " we know that an idol is nothing in the world," are probably 


really rise to that height, then you must not go a step further 
than your conscience allows. "That which does not 
spring out of conviction is sin." And if there is a " brother " 
who has scruples you must not indulge your liking till you 
have won him to your way of thinking. " Do not ruin 
with your eating the brother for whom Christ died." 3 3 

What we have here to note is the immense value attached 
to the individual conscience. No community can be 
** built up," Paul says, except upon a tender and sincere 
regard for the conscience of its members, even though the 
conscience be mistaken or over-scrupulous. On the other 
hand, the robust conscience is bound to criticize with a 
candid eye the whole field of obligation and duty, unham- 
pered by tabus or superstitious fears 5 moved only by the 
consciousness of a relation to Christ within the conscience 
which must never be desecrated, and by a perpetual sense 
of responsibility towards others : " for no one lives to 
himself and no one of us dies to himself." 

Finally, the growing Christian community aims at 
comprehending all humanity. Meanwhile, its task un- 
finished, it has relations to "the outsiders." First, the 
Christian has a duty to the conscience of his pagan neigh- 
bours. He is bound to respect their moral standards to 
the utmost of his power. " Think out conduct which shall 
be honourable in the judgment of all men." 3 * But further, 
the obligation to a general beneficence which love entails 
is not limited by the bounds of the Christian community : 
" as we have opportunity let us do good to #//, especially to 
members of the family of faith." " Never return evil for 
evil, but always pursue what is good both towards one another 

to be taken as citations from the letter of the Corinthian church 
to Paul, expressing the view of the " strong-minded " or ultra- 
Pauline party. Paul accepts both statements with qualifications. 

*3 Rom. xiv. T -xv. 6. 

*4 Rom. zii. 17, I Cor. x, 32, I Thess. iv. 12, cf. Col. iv. 5* 


and towards all." " I am debtor/' Paul said, " to Greeks and 
barbarians." That debt he sums up in the same epistle as 
" to love one another." 2 5 That love will inspire the most 
scrupulous discharge of all social duties. The emperor 
and his government come within the scope of this general 
obligation, the more so because, however imperfectly, 
the empire does seek to embody something of that natural 
law of recompense which can only be transcended as men 
enter into the higher life of love and liberty in Christ. 36 But 
love will lead to something more positive than the mere 
discharge of duties. For all the measure of good that there 
is in paganism, there is also a power of evil, which is exerted 
by way of opposition to the Christian community. This is 
to be met always, not merely with non-resistance, but with 
an overplus of good. " If possible, keep the peace with all, 
so far as the decision lies with you. Do not seek revenge, 
dear friends, but let the Nemesis of sin have its course. 
. . , Do not be conquered by evil, but conquer evil 
with good." *7 This is surely an admirable summary 
and application of the teachings on non-resistance in 
the Sermon on the Mount. The outcome of it all is 
that the principle of reciprocity "an eye for an eye, 
and a tooth for a tooth " which in the old religion 
defined the nature of the divine dealing and therefore of 
moral obligation as between men, is superseded by the 
new positive and creative principle of love. Because love 
is the only principle upon which God deals with us, it is 
the only foundation of human morality. 

In all this it is implied that society as constructed on a 
pagan basis must pass away. The future lies with the 
new community created by the Spirit of Christ. The 
future of mankind is entrusted to this community, and its 
history must be the growth and consolidation of this com- 

2I > Gal. vi. 10, I Thess. v. 15, Rom. i. 14, cf. xiii. 8. 
** Rom. xiii. i-io. 37 Rom. jii. 14-21. 


munity Its members are as "luminaries in the world, 
holding out the word of truth." ^8 They are " elect " for 
a purpose the purpose of bringing into God's way and into 
the fellowship of His Son the whole race of mankind without 
distinction. In looking forward, therefore, Paul can con- 
centrate attention upon the fortunes of Christ's Body. 
In it he sees the promise of a true commonwealth of 
man. Already within the borders of the Christian Society 
the great distinctions of race, sex, culture, status, are 
transcended, and the autonomous company of believers 
at Ephesus or Rome is a real nucleus of the universal 
commonwealth. He sees this commonwealth growing 
up, built on the foundation of apostles and prophets 
lives of men illuminated, inspired, and sanctified with 
Christ for corner-stone ; a temple inhabited by the 
Spirit of God. Or again, he sees it as a living 
organism Christ the Head, every joint playing its part 
in consolidating the living structure, till it grows into 
perfect humanity. Then as his vision broadens he sees 
this " full-grown man " made the means of the redemp- 
tion of the universe which waits in hope for the revelation 
of the sons of God. For God who "was in Christ 
reconciling the world to Himself" has purposed in the 
end "to sum up in Christ all things, in heaven and 
earth." -9 That vision of a world made one and free 
was the inspiration of the apostle's life-work, and it is 
the word of hope he passes on to a distracted race. 

*8 Phil. ii. 15-16. 

3 9 EpL ii. 19-22, iv. 12-16, i. 10, c Col. i. 20 ; I Cor. xv. 



THE following abridged paraphrase of the Epistle to 
the Romans aims at presenting in a plain way the con- 
tinuous sequence of the argument, while suggesting the 
free epistolary form of the original x : 


Wherever I go I hear of your faith, and I thank 
God for it. It is a part of my daily prayers that I may be 
permitted to visit you. I believe such a visit would do you 
good, and I am sure it would do me good. In fact, I have 
tried again and again to get to Rome, but hitherto something 
has always turned up to prevent me. I shall not feel that 
my work as missionary to the Gentiles is complete until 
I have preached in Rome. My mission is a universal one, 
knowing no bounds of race or culture naturally, since 
my message is a universal one. It is a message of God's 
righteousness, revealed to men on a basis of faith (i. 1-17). 
Apart from this, there is nothing to be seen in the world 
of to-day but the Nemesis of sin. Take the pagan w rid: 
all men have a knowledge of God by natural religion 5 
but the pagan world has deliberately turned its back upon 

1 First published in The Student Movement > 1919. 

1 60 


this knowledge, and, for all its boasted philosophy, has 
degraded religion into idolatry. The natural consequence 
is a moral perversity horrible to contemplate (i. 18-32). 

But you, my Jewish friend, need not dwell with com- 
placency upon the sins of the pagan world. You are guilty 
yourself. Do not mistake God's patience with His people 
for indulgence. His judgments are impartial. Know- 
ledge or ignorance of the Law of Moses makes no difference 
here. The pagans have God's law written in their con- 
science. If they obey it, well ; if not, they stand con- 
demned. And as for you you call yourself a Jew and 
pride yourself on the Law. But have you kept all its 
precepts ? You are circumcised and so forth : that goes 
for nothing ; God looks at the inner life of motive and 
affection. An honest pagan is better than a bad Jew in 
His sight. I do not mean to say there is no advantage in 
being a Jew : [of this more presently ;] but read your Bible 
and take to yourself the hard words of the prophets spoken, 
remember, not to heathens, but to people who knew the 
Law, just as you do. No, Jew and pagan, we are in the 
same case. No one can stand right before God on the basis 
of what he has actually done. Law only serves to bring 
consciousness of guilt (ii. i-iii. 20). 

But now, Law apart, we have a revelation of God's 
righteousness [as I was saying (i. 17)]. It comes by faith, 
the faith of Jesus Christ j and it comes to every one^ Jew or 
Gentile, who has faith. We have all sinned, and all of us 
can be made to stand right with God. That is a free gift 
to us, due to His graciousness. We are emancipated in 
Christ Jesus, who is God's appointed means of dealing with 
sin a means operating by the devotion of His life, and by 
faith on our part. It is thus that God, having passed over 
sins committed in the old days when He held His hand, 
demonstrates His righteousness in the world of to-day ; 
i.e. it is thus that He both shows Himself righteous, and 



makes those stand right before Him who have faith in Jesus 
Christ. No room for boasting here ! No distinction of 
Jew and Gentile here ! (iii. 21-31). 

But what about Abraham ? you will say. Did not he 
win God's graciousness by what he did I Not at all 
Read your Bible, and you will find that the promise was 
given to him before he was circumcised ; and the Bible 
expressly says that " he had faith in God, and that counted 
for righteousness," The same principle applies to us all 
(chap. iv.). 

[To return to the point, then.] We stand right with God 
on the ground of faith, and we are at peace with Him, come 
what may. God's love floods our whole being a love 
shown in the fact that Christ died for us, not because we 
were good people for whom anyone might die, but actually 
while we were sinners. He died, not for His friends, but 
for His enemies. Very well then, if while we were enemies 
Christ died for us, surely He will save us now that we are 
friends ! If He reconciled us to God by dying for us, 
surely He will save us by living for us, and in us* There 
is something to boast about ! (v. i-i i). 

[Christ died and lives for us all, I say. But, you ask, 
how can the life and death of one individual have conse- 
quences for so many ?] You believe that we all suffer for 
Adam's sin ; and if so, why should we not all profit by 
Christ's righteousness ? Of course there is really no 
comparison between the power of evil to propagate itself 
and the power of good to win the victory, for that is a matter 
of God's graciousness. However, you see my point : 
one man sinned a whole race suffers for it ; one Man 
lived righteously a whole race wins life by it. [But 
what about Law ? you say,] Law only came in by the 
way, to intensify the consciousness of guilt (v. 1 2-21). 

Now I come to a difficulty. I have heard people say, 
** If human sin gives play to God's graciousnessj let us go 


on sinning to give Him a better chance. Why not do evil 
that good may come ? " (cf. iii. 8). What nonsense ! 
To be saved through Christ is to be a dead man so far as sin 
is concerned. Think of the symbolism of Baptism. You 
go down into the water : that is like being buried with 
Christ. You come up out of the water : that is like rising 
with Christ from the tomb. It means, therefore, a new life> 
a life which comes by union with the living Christ. You 
will admit that, once a man is dead, there is no more claim 
against him for any wrong he may have committed. He 
is like a slave set free from all claims on the part of his late 
master. Think, then, of yourselves as dead. When you 
remember the death of Christ, think that you i.e. your 
old bad selves were crucified with Him. And when you 
remember His resurrection, think of yourselves as living 
with Him, a new life. And above all, bear in mind that 
Christ, once risen, does not die again : and so you, living 
the new life in Him, need not die again. I mean, the sin 
that once dominated you need not any longer control you j 
do not let it ! You 'are freed slaves ; do not sell yourselves 
into slavery again. Or, if you like to put it so, you are now 
slaves, not of Sin, but of Righteousness (a very crude way 
of putting it, but I want to help you out). Just as once 
you were the property of Sin, and all your faculties were 
instruments of wrong, so now you are the property of 
Righteousness, and every faculty you have must be an instru- 
ment of right. Freed from sin, you are slaves of God ; 
that is what I mean. The wages your old master paid 
was death. Your new Master makes you a present of 
life (vi. 1-23). 

Or take another illustration. You know that by law 
a woman is bound to her husband while he lives ; 
when he is dead she is free ; she can marry again 
if she likes and the law has no claim against her. So you 
may think of yourselves as having been married to Sin, or 


to Law. Death has now released you from that marriage 
bond, [though here the illustration halts, for] it is Christ's 
death that has freed you ! Well, anyhow, you are free 
free, shall I say, to marry Christ. You had a numerous 
progeny of evil deeds by your first marriage 5 you must 
now produce an offspring of good deeds to Christ. I 
mean, of course, you must serve God in Christ's spirit 
(vi. i-vii. 6). 

Now I admit that all this sounds as though I identified 
law with sin. That is not my meaning. But surely it is 
clear that the function of law is to bring consciousness of 
sin j e.g. I should never have known what covetousness 
was but that the law said ts Thou shalt not covet." Such 
is the perversity of human nature under the dominion of 
sin that the very prohibition provokes me to covet. There 
was a time when I knew nothing of Law, and lived my own 
life. Then Law came, sin awakened in me, and life 
became death for me. Of course Law is good, but Sin 
took advantage of it, to my cost. I am only flesh and blood, 
and flesh and blood is prone to sin. I can see what is good, 
and desire it, but I cannot practise it ; i.e. my reason 
recognizes the law, and yet I break it through moral per- 
versity. If you like to put it so, there is one law for my 
reason, the Law of God, and another for my outward 
conduct, the law of sin and death. It is like a living man 
chained to a dead body. It is perfect misery. But, thank 
God, the chain is broken ! The law of the Spirit of Life 
which is in Christ has set me free from the law of sin and 
death. Christ entered into this human nature of flesh and 
blood which is under the dominion of Sin. Sin put in its 
claim to be His master ; but Christ won His case ; Sin 
was non-suited, its claim disallowed, and human nature 
was free. The result is that all the Law stood for of 
righteousness, holiness, and goodness is fulfilled in those 
who live by Christ's Spirit. There are two possible forms 


of human life : there is the life of the lower nature of 
flesh and blood, of which I have spoken ; and there is the 
life of the spirit. We have Christ's Spirit, and so we can 
live the life of the spirit. And in the end that Spirit will 
give new life to the whole human organism (vii. 7 viii. 1 1). 

You see, then, that the flesh-and-biood nature has no 
claim upon us. We belong to the Spi it. Those who are 
actuated by that Spirit are sons of God. [I used a while 
back the expression, " slaves of God " ; but really] we are 
not slaves but sons sons and heirs of God, like Christ ; 
and when we come into our inheritance, how glorious 
it will be ! (viii. 12-18). 

This, however, is still in the future. At the present 
time the whole universe is in misery, and in its misery it 
waits for the revelation of God's sons. New all existence 
seems futile in its transience ; and even we still share 
creation's pangs. But we have hope ; and the ground 
of that hope is the possession of God's Spirit in a first 
instalment only, but enough to reckon upon. The fact 
is that every prayer we utter yes, even an inarticulate 
prayer is the utterance of the Spirit within us. We 
know that all through God is working with us. His purpose 
is behind the whole process, and He is on our side. If 
He gave His Son we can trust Him to give us everything 
else. He loves us, and nothing in the world or out of it 
can separate us from His love {viii. 1839). 

[That concludes the present stage of my argument ; 
but before I can proceed to final deductions, I must return 
to a difficulty already raised (cf. iii. 14).] If there is no 
difference between Jew and Gentile, does all the great 
past of Israel go for nothing ? Do all the promises of 
Scripture go for nothing ? First, let me say how bitterly 
I regret the exclusion of the Jewish nation as a body from 
the new life. I would surrender all my Christian privileges 
if I could find a way to bring them in. But we must 


recognize facts ; and the first fact is that the nation as a 
whole never was able to claim the promises ; from the 
beginning there was a process of selection. Of the sons of 
Abraham, Isaac alone was called ; of the sons of Isaac, 
Jacob only. If we ask why, there is no answer save that 
God is bound by no natural or historical necessity, but 
intervenes according to His will. To question that will is 
as absurd as for the pot to arraign the potter. Then again, 
while some members of the Hebrew race have always fallen 
out, always God has declared His purpose ultimately to 
include others, not members of the Hebrew race and that 
is just what is now happening. Now, as I said, I desire 
nothing more earnestly than that the whole nation should 
be saved. But the fact is that they have deliberately rejected 
the chance that was offered them. There is nothing remote 
or abstruse about the Christian message. It is a very simple 
thing : acknowledge Jesus as Lord, and believe that He 
is alive ; that is all. And they cannot say that they have 
never heard the message, for Christ has His witnesses every- 
where. It looks, then, as if God>had rejected His people, 
as punishment for their obstinacy. I do not believe it. 
God's promises cannot go for nothing. In the first place, 
there has always been, and there still is, a faithful remnant 
of the Jewish people. And in the second place, as for the 
main body, their present rejection of the message is only a 
means in God's Providence for its extension to the Gentiles. 
The old olive-tree of Israel stands yet $ many of its branches 
have been lopped off, and new branches of wild olive have 
been engrafted in their place. But God can engraft the 
lopped branches on again, if it be His will ; and I believe 
it is His will, and that ni the end the whole nation will 
return to Him and inherit the promises. And if the failure 
of Israel has meant such blessing to the world, how much 
greater blessing will its ultimate salvation bring ! God's 
purpose, as I said at the beginning (cf. i. 16), is universal : 


He has permitted the whole of humanity, Jew and Gentile 
alike, to fall under sin, only in order that He may finally 
have mercy on the whole of humanity, Jew and Gentile 
alike. How profound and unsearchable are His plans ! 
(chaps, ix. xi.). 

[So now I can take up again my main Argument J If 
this is the way of God's dealing with us, what ought to be 
our response ? Can we do less than offer our entire selves 
to God as a sacrifice of thanskgiving ? How will that 
work out ? In a life lived as by members of one single 
body. Let each perform his part faithfully. Let love 
rule all your relations one to another, and to those outside, 
even to your enemies. Do not regard the Emperor as 
outside the scope of love, but obey his laws and pay his taxes. 
Yes, and pay all debts to every one. Love is, in fact, the 
one comprehensive debt of man to man. If you love your 
neighbour as yourself, you have fulfilled the whole moral 
law. But be in earnest^abput things, for the better day is 
already dawning (chaps, xii.-xiii.). 

I hear you have differences among yourselves about 
Sabbath-keeping and vegetarianism. Take this matter, 
then, as an example of what I mean by the application of 
brotherly love to all conduct Remember that the Sab- 
batarian and the anti-Sabbatarian, the vegetarian and the 
meat-eater, are alike servants of one Master. Give each 
other credit for the best motives. Do not think of yourself 
alone ; think of your Christian brother, and try to put 
yourself in his place. If he seems to you a weak-minded, 
over-scrupulous individual, remember that in any case he 
is your brother, and that Christ died for him as well as for 
you, and reverence his conscience. If through your 
example he should do an act which is harmless in you but 
sin to him, you have injured his conscience. Is it worth 
while so to imperil a soul for the sake of your liberty in such 
external matters ? If the other man is weak-minded, and you 


strong-minded, all the more reason why you should help to 
bear his burden. Remember, Christ did not please Him- 
self. In a word, Sabbatarian and anti-Sabbatarian, Jew 
and Gentile, treat one another as Christ has treated you, 
and God be with you (xiv. i-xv. 13). 

Well, friends, I hardly think you needed this long exhor- 
tation from me. You are intelligent Christians, and well 
able to give one another good advice. Still, I thought I 
might venture to remind you of a few points ; for after 
all, I do feel a measure of responsibility for you, as missionary 
to the Gentiles. I have now accomplished my mission 
as far West as the Adriatic. Now I am going to Jerusalem 
to hand over the relief fund we have raised in Greece. 
After that I hope to start work in the West, and I propose 
to set out for Spain and take Rome on my way. Pray for 
me, that my errand to Jerusalem may be successful, so 
that I may be free to visit you (xv. 14-23). 

I wish to introduce to you our friend Phoebe. She 
renders admirable service to our congregation at Cenchraeae 
Do all you can for her ; she deserves it. 

Kind regards to Priscilla and Aquila, Epaenetus, Mary, 
and all friends in Rome. 

(P.S. Beware of folk who make mischief. Be wise ; 
be gentle ; and all good be with you.) 

Timothy, Lucius, Jason, Sosipater, and all friends 
at Corinth send kind regards. (So do I T/rftW, 
amanuensis !} 

Glory be to God ! 

With all good wishes, 

Your brother, 

Missionary of Jesus Christ. 



ROMANS (contd.) 

ROMANS (contd.) 




Occasion of , .42 

iv. 15 ... 63 

viii. 3 . 58, 82, 84, 

Paraphrase of .160- 

iv. 16 . . , 108 



v. i , , 108, 114 

viii. 5-8. .. 60 

Hi .... 43 

v. 3-5 ... 40 

viii. 9-ir , . 91 

V. 5 141 

viii, 1213 57 

L 3 4 . '. *. ! 88 

v. 6-8 ... 75 

viii. 14-17 . , 131 

i. 4 . . . * 90 

v. 6 .... 64 

viii. 17 . . 91, 140 

i, 14 , . . . 158 

v. 8-10 ... 123 

viii. 18-25 * 30 

i. 16-17 ... 77 

v. 9 . . 63, 98, 114 

viii. 20-21 . . 55 

.16. . . .135 

v. 10 ... 55 

viii. 20 ... 58 

. 17-18 . . . 39 

v. I2-2I . 59, 95 

viii, 21 ... 57 

. 18 . . . . 63 

v. 12 . . 58, 105 

viii. 23 . . 57, 125 

. 18-32 . 63, 77, 109 

v. 13-14 . . 80 

viii. 26-27 131 

. 18-23 . . , 59 

v. 17-19 . . 99 

viii, 28-39 . . 36 

. 19-21 ... 131 

v. 18-19 , .110 

viii. 30 . . . 114 

. 19 34 

V. 20 ... 80 

viii. 34 ... 90 

i. 24-32 ... 148 

V. 21 . . 48, 58 

viii. 35~39 - . 75 

i. 28 .... 59 

vi. i-ii . ill, 118 

viii. 38 ... 58 

ii. l-il ... 34 

vi. 3 . . . .130 

ix. .... 36 

ii. 4 . . ,64, 76 

vi. 5-8 ... 97 

ix. i . . . .133 

ii "J 63 

vi. 6-7 . . .117 

ix. 3 , , . , 60 

ii. 8 .... 63 

vi. 10 . . .96 

ix. 6-29 ... 37 

ii 14-15 34.56 

vi. 12-23 . .117 

ix. 7-13 ... 76 

ii, 15 ... 109 

vi. 12-14 . . 120 

ix. ii ... 37 

ii. 28-29 . . 71 

vi. 12 , , ,58 

ix. 22 . . 63, 76 

iii. 1-20 ... 37 

vi. 14 . . .58 

ix. 22-24 64 

iii. 5 .... 63 

vi. 17-23 . . 58 

ix. 22-23 , , 63 

iii. 9-23 ... 46 

vi. 19 . . . n8 

ix. 27-29 . . 38 

iii. 21-30 . 46, 77 

vi. 22-23 . . 48 

ix, 32 ... 108 

iii. 22 ... 107 

vi. 23 . 64, 105, 109 

x .... 77 

iii. 23-26 . . 99 

vii. . 71-73, 80-82 

xi. 1-12 ... 36 

iii. 24 . . * 116 

vii. 8-1 1. . . 58 

4-7 37 

iii. 25 . . 77,98 

vii. 12. . , 66 

xi. 4. ... 38 

iii. 26 . . 77, 107 

vii. 14 * . 60, 66 

xi. 8-10 , . . 63 

iii, 27 ... in 

vii. 18 ... 60 

xi. 11-33 . . 40 

iii, 30 ... 108 

vii. 20 . , .58 

xi. 32 . . , 64 

iv. 37, 76 

vii. 22-23 . . 56 

xi. 33-xii. 2 . 146 

iv.3-8 ... 77 

viii. 1-2 . . * 74 

xiLz. . . . 98 

iv.5- . .64,115 

viii. 2 . . .117 

xii. 2. . . 39, 135 


ROMANS (contd,} 

I COR. (contd.) 

I COR. (contd.) 




xu.4-8 . . . 154 

iv. 15 ... 135 

XV. 21-22 . . 95 

arii. 4-5 - - 9i, 139 

iv. 20 ... 135 

XV. 21 ... 105 

xii. 68 141 

xii. 14-21 . . 158 

v. xo-ii. . . 148 i xv. 25-28 . . 159 

xii. 17 ... 157 

vi. 3. ... 58 

xv. 40-50 . . 55 

xii. 19 ... 63 

vi. ii . 114, 118 

xv. 35-54 - - 57 

xiii. i-io . . 158 

vi. 15 ... 91 

xv. 45-49 . . 88 

xiii. 1-6 . . 34 

vi. 19 . . . 118 

xvi. 19 . . 25, 26 

xiii. i ... 134 

vii . . . . 150 

xiii. 4 ... 134 

vii. 10-11 . . 150 

xiii, 5 ... 63 

viii. 1-13 . . 156 


xiii. 8-10 . . 142 

viiu 1-3 . . . 132 

xiii. 8 ... 158 

viii. i ... 142 

Personal traits in 28 

xiii. 12-13 39 

viii. 6 ... 88 

i. i . . . .144 

xiiL 14 . in, 130 

viii. 12 ... 133 

i. 5-7 98 

xiv. i xv. 6. . 157 

ix 14.0 

i. 7 . . . . 140 

adv. 9 ... 90 

ix. i .... 87 

i. 14 .... 39 

xv. 26-27 . .155 

ix. 23-27 . .114 

i. 18 . . . . 107 

xvi. 5 ... 26 

x. i-ii . . 37, 119 

i. 22 . . . . 125 

acvi. 23 . . .26 

x. 4 . . . 77, 88 

ii- 15 39 

xvi. 25-26 . . 39 

x. ii ... 39 

iii. 4-18 ... 77 

x. 13 ... 107 

iii. 5 . . . . 113 


x. 14-31 . . 156 
x. 16-21 140, 143 

iii. 12-18 . . 130 
iii. 17 .88, 117,127 

i. 2 . . , .144 

x. 16-17 . . 91 

iv. 4 . . . 39, 88 

i.8 . . . -39 

x. 16 ... 98 

iv. 6 . . . 74, 87 

i. 9 . 107, 131, 140 

x. 23-26 . .148 

iv. 7-11 . , . 121 

i. 12 .... 51 

x. 32 . 144, 157 

iv. lo-ii . . 91 

i. 1317 . .118 

xi. i . . . . 130 

iv. i6-v, 4 . . 53 

i. 18-31 ... in 

xi. 10 . . .58 

*T. *V J. . . JJ 

iv. 16 ... 56 

i. 1 8 . . . 3Q 135 

xi. 1734. . . 143 

v. 5 , . . . 125 

* * w JVf *JJ 

i. 21 .... 37 

*/ JT * *TO 
Xi. 22 . . . 144 

v. 14-15 . 75* 97 

i. 24 . . . 86, 135 

xi. 25 . . .98 

v. 16-17 * 9 2 

i. 26 . . . . 26 

xi. 27 . . .98 

v. 17 ... 135 

i. 30 . 86, 116, 118 

xii-xiv . . . 125 

v. 18-19 75 

ii .... 132 

xii .... 139 

V. 21 . . . . 96 

ii. 6-8 ... 39 

xii. 4-11. . . 141 

vi. 2 . . . . 39 

ii. 8 . . . .58 

xii. 6. . , .113 

viii. 9 ... 88 

ii. i2-iii. 3 . . 57 

xii. 8. . . . 132 

x. i . . * . 147 

ii. 15 ... 133 

xii. 12-27 . .91 

x. 2-4 ... 60 

ii. 16 . . 128 

xii. 12-14 4 6 

x. 3-6 ... 132 

in. 7 . . . . in 

xii. 13 . 130, 139 

xi. 23-28 . . 25 

iii. ii . . .91 

xii. 28-31 . . 141 

xi. 26 . . .52 

Hi. 13 ... 39 

xiii . . 141, 147 

xii. 1-9 . . 87, 128 

iii. 16-17 . . 118 

xiii. 2 ... 107 

xii. 7-9 ... 25 

iii. 21-23 J 4 8 

xiii. 12 ... 132 

xii. 7. . . .58 

iii. 23 . . .91 

xiv. 1-5 , . .141 

xii. 9-io. . . 135 

iv. 3-5 . . . 133 

xv. 4-8 . . , 87 

xii. 10 . . . 40 

iv. 3 * 134 

xv. 9. . . 23, 144 

xii. 20 ... 148 

iv. 7 . . . , in 

xv. 12-28 . . 91 

xiii. 3-4 . . . 135 

iv. 9-13 ... 25 

xv. 20-28 . . 40 

xiii. 13 ... 140 




GALATIANS (contd.} 

EPHESIANS (contd,) 



Personal traits in 28 

v. 15 ... 55 


iv. 7-16 ... 141 

1.4 -... 39 

v. 17 ... 57 

iv. 12-16 . 89, 159 

i. 6-9 ... 52 

v. 19-21 . 6o f 148 

iv. 16 . . . 142 

i, 8 . . . .58 

v. 22-23 -125,151 

iv. 18 ... 56 

i. 12 . . . . 128 

v, 23 ... 117 

iv. 24 ... 135 

i. 13 - . . 23. 144 

v. 24 ... in 

iv. 25-vi. 9 , .151 

i. 14 . . . . 22 

vi. 2 . , . 142, 147 

iv. 28 ... 155 

L 15-16 . . 23, 87 

vi. 7 .65, 109 

v. 1-2 ... 75 

"-I5- - - 36, 37 

vi. 8 . . 48, 60, 125 

v. 6 . . . .63 

ii. i-io . . 23, 51 

vi. 10 . . . 158 

v. 21-23 - 150 

ii. 11-14 * 5i 

vi. 12-16 . . 52 

vi. 12 . , 35, 58 

ii. 16 . 107, 108 

vi. 14 ,74,108, 120 

vi. 18 ... 131 

ii. 19-20 . 74, 87 

vi. 16 . . 4 144 

ii. 19 . . 74, 108 


ii. 20 ... 130 


Time and place 

iii. 1-5 ... 52 

of . , . .29 

iii. i . . . . 108 

Character, time, 

Personal traits in 28 

iii. 6-iS ... 37 

and place of . 8, 29 

i. 6 . . . .39 

iii. 7-22 ... 76 

i. 3-ii. 23 . . 41 

i- 9-io ... 133 

iii. 7-9 ... 37 

i. 3-14 ... 36 

i. 10 .... 39 

iii. 10-11 . . 71 

i- 4-7 ... 75 

i. 21 . . . . 130 

iii. H-I2 . . 77 

i- 5 .... 37 

ii. I . . . .140 

iii. 13 ... 101 

i. 7 - .98, 116 

ii. 5 . * . .145 

iii. i5-iv. 7 . .80 

i 9 .... 37 

ii. 6-8 ... 88 

iii. 16-17 36 

i ro . . .91, 159 

ii. o-ii ... 90 

iii. 19 - . . 36, 80 

i 14 . . 116, 125 

ii. lo-n . . 41 

iii. 22 ... 107 

i 15 * .107 

ii. 12-13 . .115 

iii. 23-24 . . 38 

i. 17 - . * . 132 

ii. 13 - . 37* 113 

iii. 24 ... 108 

i. 19-20 . . .113 

ii. 15-16 . 39, 159 

iii. 26-28 . 46, 139 

i. 20-23 ... 90 

iii. 3-9 ... 46 

iii. 26 . . . 107 

i. 23 .... 91 

iii. 5 . . . . 22 

iii. 27 ... 130 

ii. 2 .... 39 

iii. 7-n ... 120 

iii. 28 . . 91, 150 

ii. 3 ... 60, 63 

iii. 9 - 107, in 

iv. 1-7 . . . 117 

ii. 4-10 ... 75 

iii. 10 . . 40, 140 

iv. 1-3 ... 38 

ii. 5-7 ... 91 

iii. 12-14 - -114 

iv. 3 35, 58 

ii. 8 . . . .108 

iii. 15-16 . . 134 

iv. 4-5 36,84 

ii. 9 - . . .in 

iii. 20 ... 48 

iv. 4 . . . , 88 

ii. 10 . is c 

iv. 7 . cfi 

iv. 6-7 ... 131 

. ... i$3 

". 13 ... 98 

iv. 13 . . 74, 135 

iv- 9 - - 35, 58, 132 

ii. 14 ... 55 

V. 22 ... 26 

IV. 12-20 . . 52 

ii. 15-22 . . 91 

iv. 13 . . 25, 60 

ii. 19-22 . 46, 159 


iv. 19 ... 130 

ii. 21 ... 118 

Time and place 

iv. 21-31 . 49, 76, 

iii. 1-12 ... 39 

of . . . .29 


iii. 12 . 107, 108 

i. 4 -107 

V. I-I2 ... 52 

iii. 14-19 . 91, 135 

i. 13-19 ... 88 

V. I . . . . 117 

iii. 17 108 x^o 

1 T 3 T C t* 

v. 5 . . . ,114 

iii. 1819 . . 75 

*. 13 15 ... 75 
i. 14 * 116 

v. 6 . . . . 141 

iii. 20-21 . .113 

i. 17-29 ... 41 

v. 13-14 . . 142 

iv. 1-16 ... 139 

i. 18-29 . * 139 

v. 13 ... 60 

iv. 4-16 . . 46, 91. 

L 18-20 ... 90 


COLOSS. (contd.) 


L 18 . . . . gz 
i. 19 ... 37* 90 
i 20 08 159 

COLOSS. (contd.) 


iiu 9-u . . 46, 91, 
iii, 135 
iii, TO ii . 41 

I THESS. (contd.) 


iv. 13-v. ii . 40, 91 
v. 4-8 ... 39 

i. 21 56 

iii. IT . . i3Q 

V. Q . . . 6^ 

i. 22 . . . . 60 

i. 24 . 40, 74, 91, 98 
i. 25-29 ... 39 
L 27 . . .91, 125 
L 29 . . . . 113 
ii. 2-3 ... 132 
ii. 5 . . * . 107 
ii. 8 . . * 35,58 

iii. 14-15 . 141 
iii. 15 . 91 
iii. 17 . . 147 
iv. 5 . . . . 157 
iv. 15 ... 26 


v. 14 ... 154 
v. 15. . . 158 
v. 24 ... 107 


i. 10 .... 39 
ii. i-io ... 40 
ii. 2 . . . . 30 

ii. 9 . . . .90 
ii. 10-13 . . 118 
ii. 13 ... 60 
ii. 16-23 . . 148 
ii. 18 56, 58, 60 
ii. 19 . . 41, 91 
& 20 . . 35, 58 
iii 14 . . T^T 

i. 5 -132 
i. 6 . . . 130 
L 8 . . 107 
L 10 . . .63 

ii. 13 . U3 
ii. 15-16 . 50 
ii. 16 . 39> 63 
iii. ^ . . AO 

ii. 6-7 ... 34 


Occasion and 
subject of . 29, 

2 ..... 26 

iii 5 iv 6 151 

iv. 37 . .118 

6 . . . . . 140 

iii. 5-9 . . .148 
iii 6 * ... 63 

iv. 7-12 . . 150 
iv. 12 157 

8-16 .... 26 
17 140